Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
How to Settle the Tussle between Business Model Innovation Approaches
Exploring the Automotive industry using a dual case study of Fiat and Tata Motors
Authors: Mennatullah Elsalhy Arifulla Shariff
Supervisor: Sujith Nair
Student
Umeå School of Business & Economics
Autumn semester 2013
Master thesis, 15 hp
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to everyone who
directly or indirectly supported us during this study. Fore mostly, we would like to
thank our supervisor Sujith Nair for his guidance and support right from the first day of
our study by providing us with continuous feedback to nourish our idea development
process.
We would like to whole-heartedly thankful our interviewees Maurizio Consalvo (Fiat),
Rakesh Bhat (Tata Motors) and Ramacharda P Madiwale (Tata Motors) for providing
us insights with their respective companies to foster our data analysis. Also, we are very
obliged from Professor Antonio Calabrese’s assistance to find industry contacts.
We were honoured to be part of MSPME and Erasmus Mundus organization, we thank
the program directors Professor Amos Haniff (Heriot-Watt University - UK), Professor
Antonio Calabrese (MIP Politecnico Di Milano – Italy), and Professor Tomas
Blomquist (Umeå University – Sweden) for their efforts with this year’s edition.
We would also like to extend our acknowledgement to all our professors who
contributed to nurture our knowledge acumen on project management discipline during
this Master’s program, especially Professor Collin Turner (Heriot-Watt University -
UK) for introducing us to Business models and Business model innovation, and also
Professor Marco Giorgini and Professor Mauro Mancini (MIP Politecnico Di Milano –
Italy) for teaching us Finance and Project Management with practical comprehensions.
Furthermore, we would like to appreciate our MSPME classmates for their support and
enthusiasm to make a memorable journey, and we would like to thank our families and
friends for their ever-lasting support.
Last but not the least, this thesis is an endeavor of mutual efforts, so we would like to
appreciate each other’s contribution to make this study/project happen.
Mennatullah Elsalhy
Arifulla Shariff
ii
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the drivers and forms of business model innovation. It is built on
the business model innovation typology proposed by Koen et al. (2011), we have
developed its dimensions into Hurdle rate, technology, partners value network and
customer value network. The study used these dimensions as a base to differentiate
between the two approaches of the business model innovation which were identified as
innovating the existing business model approach and multiple business model approach.
The study used qualitative analysis, through a dual case study approach in the
automotive industry, consequently Fiat and Tata Motors were selected as case studies.
Furthermore, the study foundation is secondary data supported by primary data (i.e.
interviews) to investigate how each of these two organizations has implemented
business model innovation in each case study, by highlighting and contrasting their
different approaches of business model innovation.
The results of the study showed that each of the two approaches of business model
innovation implies open innovation and expands the organization’s value network.
However, innovating the existing business model focuses on improving the
organizations’ performance, and sustaining innovation. On the other hand, the multiple
business model approach aims to disrupt the industry or a competitor (i.e. New entrant),
through disruptive innovation.
Moreover, the study proposed a process based framework and a checklist on business
model innovation, to assist the decision makers in organizations while choosing
between innovating their existing business model or designing a new one.
Keywords: Business Model Innovation; Open Innovation; Automotive Industry; Fiat;
Tata Motors; Tata Nano; Re-innovating Existing Business Model; Multiple Business
Model; Value network; Technology Innovation; Innovative Leadership.
iii
iv
GLOSSARY
Co-opetition - Is a strategic alliance between two organizations that exploits the
benefits of collaboration on one product whereas they stay as competitors for some
other product. (Gnyawali & Park, 2011, p. 651)
Radical Innovation – “Introduces a new concept that helps to create that depart
significantly from past practices and help create products or process based on a
different set of engineering or scientific principles and often open-up entirely new
markets and potential applications.” (Carayannis et al., 2003, p. 120)
Incremental Innovation – that incrementally leads to the creation of a new product or
system but it is not as different as radical innovation. (Carayannis et al., 2003, p. 120)
Architectural Innovation –“Serve to extend the radical-incremental classification of
innovation and introduce the notion of changes in the way which the components of a
product or system are linked together.” (Carayannis et al., 2003, p. 120)
Disruptive Innovation – Provides an opportunity for building new markets by replacing
the existing dominant technology in the market. (Garcia, 2010, p. 93)
Sustaining Innovation – Creates an opportunity to incumbent firms to reinforce their
core competences by improve their performance levels of established or existing
products. (Garcia, 2010, p. 93)
Boundary Spanning – “Refers to all inter-organizational activities between the firms.”
It plays an important role of linking between internal sources of the firm to the external
world. (Luo, 1999)
v
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...........................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... ii
GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................... iv
Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Purpose & Objectives .................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research Question ......................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Architecture of the Research ......................................................................................... 4
1.4.1 Phase 1: Project Initiation ..................................................................................... 4
1.4.2 Phase 2: Project Planning ...................................................................................... 4
1.4.3 Phase 3: Project Execution .................................................................................... 4
1.4.4 Phase 4: Project Closeout ...................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 6
2.1 Research Philosophy ..................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Research Approach ....................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Locating our Research ................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Research Strategy .......................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 3 – LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 9
3.1 Definition of Business Model ....................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Business Model Dimensions ................................................................................. 9
3.2 Business Environment ................................................................................................. 10
3.3 Business Model vs Strategy ........................................................................................ 11
3.4 Traditional Business Model Limitations ..................................................................... 11
3.5 Business Model Innovation ......................................................................................... 12
3.5.1 Business Model Innovation Definitions .............................................................. 13
3.5.2 Business Model Innovation Features .................................................................. 14
3.5.3 Business Model Innovation Typology ................................................................ 15
3.6 Business Model Innovation Approaches ..................................................................... 16
3.6.1 Innovating the Existing Business Model ............................................................. 16
3.6.2 Multiple Business Models ................................................................................... 19
3.7 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 20
vi
3.7.1 Literature Review Propositions ........................................................................... 22
Chapter 4 – RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................... 23
4.1 Preconceptions ............................................................................................................ 23
4.2 Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 23
4.3 Purpose of the Research .............................................................................................. 24
4.4 Case Study Selection ................................................................................................... 24
4.5 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 25
4.5.1 Documents ........................................................................................................... 25
4.5.2 Interviews ............................................................................................................ 25
4.6 Document Collection Process ..................................................................................... 25
4.7 Interview Process ........................................................................................................ 26
4.7.1 Pre-Interview ....................................................................................................... 26
4.7.2 Post Interview ...................................................................................................... 27
4.8 Research Quality Criteria ............................................................................................ 27
4.9 Ethical Consideration .................................................................................................. 28
Chapter 5 – CASE STUDY BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 29
5.1 Case Study (1): Fiat ..................................................................................................... 29
5.1.1 Company Background ......................................................................................... 29
5.1.2 Fiat Crisis ............................................................................................................ 30
5.1.3 Fiat Recovery from Crisis ................................................................................... 30
5.2 Case Study (2): Tata Motors ....................................................................................... 32
5.2.1 Company Background ......................................................................................... 32
5.2.2 Tata Nano ............................................................................................................ 32
5.2.3 Industry Turbulence ............................................................................................ 33
5.2.4 Nano Challenges ................................................................................................. 34
Chapter 6 – CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 35
3.8 Case Study (1): Fiat ..................................................................................................... 35
3.8.1 Fiat Introduction .................................................................................................. 35
3.8.2 Fiat Traditional Business Model ......................................................................... 36
3.8.3 Fiat Existed Business Model ............................................................................... 36
3.8.4 Fiat Post the Innovating Existing Business Model Approach ............................. 37
3.8.5 Summary ............................................................................................................. 42
3.9 Case Study (2): Tata Motors ....................................................................................... 43
3.9.1 Nano Strategy ...................................................................................................... 43
vii
3.9.2 Nano Business Model Dimensions...................................................................... 43
3.9.3 Summary ............................................................................................................. 46
Chapter 7 – DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 47
7.1 Case Comparisons ....................................................................................................... 47
7.1.1 Similarities .......................................................................................................... 47
7.1.2 Differences .......................................................................................................... 48
7.2 Literature Review Comparison with the Case Study Findings ................................... 49
7.2.1 Similarities .......................................................................................................... 49
7.2.2 Differences .......................................................................................................... 49
7.3 Proposed Framework................................................................................................... 50
7.4 Proposed Checklist ...................................................................................................... 52
Chapter 8 – CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 55
8.1 Answer to the Research Question ............................................................................... 55
8.2 Research Implications ................................................................................................. 56
8.2.1 Theoretical Implications ...................................................................................... 56
8.2.2 Managerial Implications ...................................................................................... 56
8.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research ................................................................. 57
8.4 Future Research Directions ......................................................................................... 58
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 59
APPENDIX.......................................................................................................................... 75
I. Business Model Definitions.............................................................................................. 75
II. Fiat’s Product Range ....................................................................................................... 76
III. List of Tata Nano suppliers .............................................................................................. 77
IV. Fiat’s Interview Template ................................................................................................ 78
V. Tata Motor’s Interview Template .................................................................................... 79
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Business Models Key Elements ...................................................................................... 10
Table 2: Business Model Innovation Studies with its Corresponding Industry ............................ 13
Table 3: Forms of Business Model Innovation ............................................................................. 15
Table 4: Interviewee Details ........................................................................................................ 26
Table 5: Fiat Sales and EBIT ......................................................................................................... 31
Table 6: Competitors Response to Tata Nano ............................................................................. 34
Table 7: Fiat Joint Ventures ......................................................................................................... 39
Table 8: Fiat, Existed Business Model vs Innovated Business Model .......................................... 42
Table 9: Tata Nano Sales ............................................................................................................. 45
Table 10: Tata Motors, Existed Business Model vs New Business Model ................................... 46
Table 11: Business Model Innovation Proposed Checklist ........................................................... 54
List of Figures
Figure 1: Business Environment Transformations ....................................................................... 12
Figure 2: Patterns of Innovating Existing Business Model .......................................................... 17
Figure 3: Relationship between Strategy and Business Model ................................................... 21
Figure 4: Relationship between Business Models and Business Model Innovation .................... 21
Figure 5: Benefits of Boundary Spanning of the Value Network ................................................. 22
Figure 6: Fiat’s Operating Profit/Loss .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 7: Tata Motors Timeline ................................................................................................... 32
Figure 8: Indian Automotive Industry (Segment vs Price) ........................................................... 33
Figure 9: Business Model Innovation Proposed Framework ....................................................... 51
1
Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a background on the study, identifies the research purpose and
objectives, and accordingly the research question to assist the study focus. The chapter
concludes with the architecture of this study.
1.1 Background
Over the last decades, organizations witnessed a dramatic change in the rules of the
game on the industry level, such as the growing importance of the boundary spanning
and the expansion of the organizations’ value networks (Fox & Cooper, 2014, p. 1).
Kalpan (2012, p. 35) discussed that some organizations failed in applying business
model innovation, because they retained their primary focus on their existing business
models providing fewer resources, time and attention to business model innovation
process.
Moreover, there was a rush by most organizations to imitate the industry leaders,
without identifying the relevant innovation and approach to the organization
circumstances. Innovation is commonly defined as a breakthrough for organizations’
systems, to adapt to the new rules (Kalpan, 2012, p. 35). Innovation was linked to
different aspects starting from strategy, business models, technology, product and
process. However, business model innovation was introduced as an essential element
that can drive innovation into all other aspects, since business model innovation is based
on the open innovation (Chesbrough, 2006). For example, technology innovation is not
enough to respond to industry challenges or preserve organizations’ competitive
advantage (Amit & Zott, 2012, p. 43). Nowadays, organizations sould not only develop
new products through sophisticated levels of technology, but also they are obliged to
start initially with evaluating their core logic of value creation and value capture.
“Organizations have many processes and a stronger shared sense of how to innovate
technology, than they do about how to innovate business models”. (Chesbrough cited in
Bucherer et al., 2012, p. 183)
According to Markides (1997, p. 12) organizations should focus on both the external
industry turbulence and internal strategic innovation. Sstrategic innovation begins with
identifying the gaps in the industry, and extends by providing new alternatives to fill
these gaps, either though improving the existing performance of the organization or
designing new business logic to approach these gaps. Therefore, business model
innovation is the main ingredient in the strategic innovation (Charitou & Markides,
2003, p. 56), business model innovation preserves the competitive advantage in the
industry by identifying the potential opportunities and provides the organization with
new alternatives to create and capture value (e.g. Amit & Zott, 2001; Chesbrough, 2010;
Project Initiation
•Introduction
•Research Methodology
Project Planning
•Literature Review
•Research Design
Project Execution
•Case Study Background
•Case Study Analysis
Project Close-out
•Discussion
•Conclusion
2
Coles, 2003; Demil & Lecocq, 2010; Hamel, 2000; Mendelson, 2000; Mitchell &
Teece, 2010).
The triggers for business environment in organizations vary for multiple reasons. First,
the emergence of new entrants such as Amazon, Apple, Google, and others, initiated the
importance of business model innovation in the business environment (Vendetti, 2011,
p. 1). These new entrants shifted business model elements to focus on achieving
integration between customer requirements and disruptive technology innovation;
moreover they have introduced new forms of competition and cooperation within their
respective industries (Charitou & Markides, 2003, p. 57). Second, the demand side for
some industries suffered from a massive drop due to the impacts of unexpected
incidence, such as the financial crisis, the Arab spring and the new government
legislations in the different countries. Moreover, everyday customer behaviors are less
predictable and more complex (Belk, 2008, p. 246), consumer preferences vary starting
from their expectations on the financial cost, to product performance and its advanced
level of technology (Belk, 2008, p. 245), organizations need to prerequisite to address
their customers with individualized products instead of the common forms of mass
customization (Revelle, 2002, p. 25), moreover the evolution of web 2.0 has allowed
organizations to reconfigure their relationships with customers, such that online
communications become as a common and essential direct channels with customers
(Lindgardt et al., 2009, p. 5; Wirtz et al., 2010, p. 276). Third, the production side
witnessed new forms of the relationships with suppliers and partners, since the product
life cycle is shrinking in most of the industries, while the cost of research and
development is increasing (Gnyawali & Park, 2011, p. 650). Finally, there is a new form
of integration and knowledge sharing across the different industries, especially with
digital technology industry, to improve the associated services during production and in
the final products (Parmar et al., 2014, p. 87).
Business model innovation evaluates and applies changes to the organization structures,
processes and systems to preserve their competitive advantage (Demil & Lecocq, 2010,
p. 227). Business model innovation enhances the organization plans and scans the
environment for unknown resources, and new opportunities, while achieving a unique
synergy and complementary relations with the existing resources and business
(Adegbesan, 2009, p. 473; Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 244; Wenerfelt, 1984, p. 172).
Accordingly, business model innovation can explain the heterogeneity in the
organizations’ performance that competes in the same industry or in the same strategic
group, facing the customer needs and adopting similar technology levels (Amit & Zott,
2008, p. 4; Nair et al., 2013, p. 961).
However, the review of business model innovation revealed that studies conceptualized
business model innovation differently. Some studies (e.g Chesbrough, 2007; Giesen et
al., 2009; Najmaei, 2011; Wang et al., 2009) referred to business model innovation as
reconfigurations and modifications to the existing business model of the organizations,
while other studies (e.g; Eppler el al., 2011; Markides & Charitou, 2004; Markides,
2008; Masanell & Tarziján, 2012) referred to business model innovation as the
designing and the implementation of a new business model beside the existing one.
Therefore, there is a lack of a common understanding for the circumstances that define
these two approaches for the business model innovation. Despite the fact that there were
few attempts done by some studies (e.g. Koen et al., 2011; Markides & Oyon, 2010).
For example, Koen et al. (2011, p. 55) designed a business model innovation typology
3
that defined three dimensions for business model innovation which are hurdle rate,
technology and value networks.
On the other hand, business model innovation importance was raised recently in the
automotive industry, this industry is highly correlated with the economic, social and
environmental dimensions (KPMG, 2008; Wells, 2013, p. 231). There is an emergence
of new products in the automakers’ portfolio such as the expansion in electric vehicle
development required a business model innovation. Furthermore, some of the
developing countries used business model innovation as an essential tool to modify their
business models and enhance their competitive advantage in this industry such as
Turkey which is currently a regional final assembly hub (Sturgeon & Biesebroeck,
2010, p. 11). Furthermore, one of the findings of a study conducted by IBM (2006) in
the automotive industry showed that over the last five years, business model innovation
compared to the other types of innovation, enabled their organizations to achieve a
higher growth rate in the operating margin.
1.2 Research Purpose & Objectives
This study contributes to the literature on business model, business model innovation
and value network. As the study purpose is to investigate the main approaches of
business model innovation that can be implemented by the established organizations, to
cope with the business environment changes. These approaches are as follows: First,
innovating the existing business model innovation approach. Second, the multiple
business model approach. Moreover, this study develops the business model innovation
dimensions proposed by Koen et al. (2011) to differentiate precisely between these two
approaches. Hence, it attempts specifically to draw a clear distinct line between the two
business model innovation approaches. Accordingly, this purpose is planned to be
fulfilled by investigating the process of business model innovation in two giant
organizations in the automotive industry.
To accomplish this research purpose we will be working towards it by achieving these
following research objectives:
Investigating the relationship between business model, strategy and business
environment.
Explore the key drivers and the main forms of business model innovation.
Differentiate between business model innovation, technology and process
innovation.
Identify the importance of creating value network with customers and partners as
essential tools for competitive advantage.
Providing a framework and checklist that facilitate the decision making on business
model innovation approaches.
1.3 Research Question
The research question was designed comprehensively based on the understanding and
discussion in the previous sections. Our research question developed is as follows:
4
What are the dimensions of business model innovation that influence the decision
making process in organizations, in choosing between innovating their existing business
model or applying multiple business model approach?
1.4 Architecture of the Research
The authors of this study based on their curriculum on project management, have
considered this study as an actual project. Accordingly, each chapter in study
contributes to a part of its project life cycle.
1.4.1 Phase 1: Project Initiation
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter provides a background on the study, identifies the research purpose and
objectives, and accordingly the research question to assist the study focus. The chapter
concludes with the architecture of this study.
Chapter 2: Research Methodology
This chapter begins by exploring the different views on research philosophy and
research approach, to conclude by locating this study in the relevant methodology, and
defining the research strategy.
1.4.2 Phase 2: Project Planning
Chapter 3: Literature Review
This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part provides an extensive view on
business model and environment changes. Furthermore this part discusses the
relationship between strategy and business model in the short and long run influenced
by the tempestuous business environment. This part ends discussing the limitations of
traditional views of the business model. The second part discusses business model
innovation definition and forms, and differentiates between the business model
innovation and the other types of innovation. This part continues with a discussion on
the business model innovation approaches. The chapter summarizes by a set of
propositions derived from the literature to be empirically reviewed by the case studies.
Chapter 4: Research Design
This chapter discusses research preconceptions, assumptions, and the purpose of the
study. The chapter proceeds with a discussion on the case study selection and data
collection mechanism and with an elaboration on the interview process. This chapter
also provides an explanation for the relevant quality criteria for this study, and the
ethical considerations.
1.4.3 Phase 3: Project Execution
Chapter 5: Case study background
This chapter introduces case study of Fiat and Tata Motors. The chapter begins with
Fiat, it provides the background, an overview of the different crisis faced Fiat and its
recovery. This chapter proceeds further by introducing background on Tata motors and
Tata Nano, and the impacts of Tata Nano on the industry and the current challenges
faced by Tata Nano.
5
Chapter 6: Case study Analysis
This chapter has two parts. The first part explores Fiat’s strategy, then proceeds with
evaluating the business model innovation dimensions against the existed business model
and the new changes introduced by innovating existing business model approach. This
part summarizes the difference between Fiat pre and post business model innovation.
The second part explores Tata Nano strategy and its business model innovation
dimensions, and it summarizes how Tata Nano business model is disruptive to the
industry.
1.4.4 Phase 4: Project Closeout
Chapter 7: Discussion
This chapter begins with drawing a contrast between the findings of the two case
studies, and a contrast between their findings and the literature propositions. The
chapter proceeds by introducing the proposed framework and checklist on business
model innovation.
Chapter 8: Conclusion
This chapter provides the answer to the research question, the theoretical and
managerial implication of the study. The chapter proceeds with discussing the strength
and weakness of the study, and finally the suggestions for future studies.
6
Chapter 2 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter begins by exploring the different views on research philosophy and
research approach, to conclude by locating this study in the relevant methodology, and
defining the research strategy.
2.1 Research Philosophy
The study used the research philosophy to reflect the authors’ philosophical choices that
match the research question and the knowledge development process, such that the
selection of these choices does not necessarily mean the selection of the best choice
compared to others, but the choices which are the most relevant to the research
objectives (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p. 12; Saunders et al., 2012, p. 129). Research
philosophy may begin with defining the research ontology, accordingly to Saunders et
al. (2012, p. 130) ontology identifies the nature of reality. Ontology has two extremes
on the continuum, on one side is the objectivism ontology; it identifies reality as
external and independent of social actors. This ontology is usually connected to the
positivism epistemology. Positivism is considered an application of the natural science
stances to social science, such that researchers usually have a neutral position and focus
on empirical data using quantitative analysis. Quantitative analysis is based on
hypothesis testing and building knowledge with generalization perspective. On the other
end is the constructionism ontology that identifies reality as a social phenomenon or an
end result of the social actors’ perceptions and interactions. This ontology is usually
connected to interpretivism epistemology. Interpretivism considers reality as social
constructions, researchers focus on forming understanding the differences between
humans during knowledge development. Accordingly, interpretivism focuses on the
content of the empirical data, and accordingly they emphasize the importance of
language and shared meanings using qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis can be
based on a case study that can be produced restricted generalization knowledge.
Moreover, Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008, p. 12) and Saunders et al. (2012, p. 129)
introduced critical realism epistemology which is influenced with both positivism and
interpretivism. Such that it interprets reality as a social conditioning that can be
interpreted through the social actors, therefore it may require a combination of
qualitative and quantitative analysis.
2.2 Research Approach
Saunders et al. (2012, p. 173) identified research approach as an intermediate
methodology channel between the research philosophy and research design, while
according to Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008, p. 12), research strategy is identifying the
alternatives for generating knowledge. Research can have either a deductive or
Project Initiation
•Introduction
•Research Methodology
Project Planning
•Literature Review
•Research Design
Project Execution
•Case Study Background
•Case Study Analysis
Project Close-out
•Discussion
•Conclusion
7
inductive approach. The deductive approach assumes that research is based on theory as
a basic source of knowledge, such that researcher generates causality by deducing a
number of hypothesis or propositions from theory to be verified by the study, this
implies a highly structured methodology (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p. 22; Gratton
& Jones, 2010, p. 37; Saunders et al., 2012, p. 145). On the other hand, the inductive
approach used the other way around, such that researchers use the empirical study to
explain causality and generate theoretical results in terms of building new theory or
modifying the existing one (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p. 22; Gratton & Jones,
2010, p. 37; Saunders et al., 2012, p. 146).
2.3 Locating our Research
The aim of this research is differentiating between the innovating existing business
model and multiple business models as the two main approaches of business model
innovation, and to propose a framework and checklist that guides researchers and
decision makers on the dimensions of business model innovation. Moreover, the
framework tends to highlight the different requirements to implement any of the two
approaches of business model innovation. This research is an exploratory study that
seeks the development of a new theory, according to Maanen (2000, p. 94) a new theory
main objective, is developing the existing knowledge on a certain phenomenon of
finding new alternatives capable of interpreting reality in new creative ways. Therefore,
this study is highly influenced by a constructionism ontology and interpretivism
epistemology. Since this methodological stance allows authors and interviews to
interpret and share meanings and understandings based on their experience. Moreover,
the study has mainly inductive approach as it tends to use the established theories to
form an understanding on business model and business model innovation, followed by a
given emphasize on an empirical study and the qualitative techniques to explore,
explain and gain new insights on the business model innovation. Accordingly, this study
shows an alignment between ontology, epistemology views and the research approach.
2.4 Research Strategy
In line with the study philosophical stances, exploratory case study approach was
selected as a backbone for this study for three reasons. First, this approach is the best
approach to investigate new and under researched domains of study such as business
model innovation, especially that this domain of study is composed of multiple elements
and dimensions; therefore case study approach can explore this topic in depth and
highlights the interdependency among its dimensions (Gnyawali & Park, 2011, p. 653).
Second, this study had a limited time frame to submit; therefore the case study approach
was convenient to the authors and the study objectives. According to Bell (1999, p. 10),
the case study approach can provide an in depth study within a rigid time frame if it
used to focus on a specific aspect or a situation for a certain phenomenon. Third, case
study approach enhances the validity of the qualitative studies and can decrease the
presuppositions of the researchers, because it allows for combining between the
multiple data collection methods for the empirical data. Moreover, this case study is
exploratory, and therefore research question concentrates on “what are the dimensions
of business model innovation that influence the decision making process in
organizations, in choosing between innovating their existing business model or applying
multiple business model approach.”
8
Therefore, based on the research question, the study was based on comparative and
longitudinal approaches, using dual case studies of organizations which have
implemented different approaches of business model innovation. This case study
approach aims at proposing a practical framework and checklist for managers that
facilitate the decision making process of selecting the relevant business model
innovation approach to their organizations.
9
Chapter 3 – LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part provides an extensive view on
business model and environment changes. Furthermore this part discusses the
relationship between strategy and business model in the short and long run influenced
by the tempestuous business environment. This part ends discussing the limitations of
traditional views of the business model. The second part discusses business model
innovation definition and forms, and differentiates between the business model
innovation and the other types of innovation. This part continues with a discussion on
the business model innovation approaches. The chapter summarizes by a set of
propositions derived from the literature to be empirically reviewed by the case studies.
3.1 Definition of Business Model
There is an increase in the number of publications discussing ‘business model’ since the
late 1990s and early 2000s (Zott et al., 2011, p. 1019). This indicates the interest in the
concept, however these publications did not provide a unified definition of business
model, such that Shafer et al. (2005, p. 200) reviews on business model, showed that
different studies have defined business model from various perspectives, furthermore
they found 12 definitions of business model between a 1998-2002 Moreover, we
summarized some of the definitions of business model in Appendix I. Most of the
studies (e.g. Afuah, 2003; Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010; Markides, 2008;
Markides & Sosa, 2012; Teece, 2010; Zott & Amit, 2010; Zott et al., 2011) discussed
business model as a system composed of a number of interdependent activities such as
the firm’s value-chain activities, choice of customers, offered products and services.
Accordingly, this study defines business model as “the rationale of how an organization
creates, delivers and captures value to different stakeholders within the value network”
(Hacklin & Wallnöfer, 2012; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009, p. 14), this definition is a
comprehensive and widely accepted by many researchers, moreover it reflects the three
main elements of the business model; value creation, value capture and value network.
3.1.1 Business Model Dimensions
Accordingly, studies did not agree on the common elements of business model, such
that there are more than 42 elements that describes the business models between the
years 1998 to 2002 (Shafer et al., 2005, p. 200). Some studies (e.g Afuah & Tucci,
2001, Amit & Zott, 2001; Cloete, 2003; Weill & Vitale, 2001) discussed that business
model includes following elements customer value, scope, price, revenue sources,
connected activities, implementation, capabilities. On the other side, Osterwalder (2004,
p. 43) designed a business model ontology as a synthesis of the overall literature, it
identifies nine key elements of business model in a set of four key dimensions as shown
in table (1). Such that, these dimensions influence the organization performance, affect
Project Initiation
•Introduction
•Research Methodology
Project Planning
•Literature Review
•Research Design
Project Execution
•Case Study Background
•Case Study Analysis
Project Close-out
•Discussion
•Conclusion
10
organization revenue, operating, and investment models (Mulllins & Komisar 2009, p.
179).
Dimensions Elements Description
Infrastructure Value
configuration
The configuration of the key activities and
resources essential for the value creation.
Capabilities The organizations’ ability to repeat patterns of
actions necessary in the value creation process.
Partner
Network
Cooperative work between two or more companies
to create a collective value for customers
Offerings Value
proposition
The products and services that deliver value to
customers, shows the manner in which the
organizations differentiate it from competitors.
Customers Segments The customers that the organization is willing to
serve
Channels The means of interacting with the customers.
Relationships Link established between the company and its
customer.
Financial/
Profit
Formula
Cost structure Representation in money of all the means employed
in the business model
Revenue
streams
The way a company makes money through a
variety of revenue
Source: Osterwalder (2004, p. 43)
Table 1: Business Models Key Elements
3.2 Business Environment
Business environment has witnessed set of fluctuations; one of the reasons is the shift in
market relationships towards co-opetition. This required some reconfigurations in the
organizations’ value network and expansions in their boundary spanning through
different approaches such as long term partnerships and alliances (Gnyawali & Park,
2011, p. 650). The business environment fluctuations can also be explained by
discontinuity, such that discontinuity on the industry level is the radical changes in
market demand, technology, or government policies that regulated business
environment (Johnson, 2010, p. 91). On the other hand, Watson-Manheim et al. (2002,
p. 193) discussed discontinuity on organization level, which may be a consequence of
internal factors such as the gap in the work settings, and an increase in employee
turnover. Nair et al. (2013, p. 960) summarized business environment transformation in
three main themes; rapid changes, uncertainty and turbulence. They argued that the
relationship between the organizations and business environment should be based on
both awareness and responsiveness to these changes in order to survive.
a) Turbulence: It discusses the changes driven by external factors, such as
unpredicted changes in customer preferences, the forms of innovation in technology,
and the entry of disruptive entrants who might change the game rules (Ghezzi, 2013, p.
1337; Gnyawali & Park, 2011, p. 652). Therefore, business model should be more
flexible and adaptive to respond efficiently to these industry changes (Nair et al., 2013,
p. 960).
11
b) Rapid changes: It discusses the changes driven internally by the organization, such
as change from firm centric logic from good dominant approach to the network centric
logic of the services dominant approach. Consequently, organizations tend to improve
their relationships with suppliers and partners to improve their capabilities and key
activities, and an inclination towards more interaction and closer relationship with
customers to understand their requirements and expectations (Vargo et al., 2008; Velu,
& Stiles, 2013)
c) High uncertainty: It highlights the sudden changes in the external environment
whether for political, economic and social changes that can affect the market situations,
such as the impacts of the financial crisis on consumer behaviours (Wang & Berrell,
2007, p. 103). Moreover, uncertainty can be related to the level of complexity inside and
outside the organization. Such that, the greater is the degree of complexity in an
environment, the higher is the uncertainty and risk due to the various, dynamic, and
unpredictable of its circumstances (Osterwalder, 2004, p. 13; Wytenburg, 2011, p. 118).
The uncertainty affects organizations capabilities knowledge capture, in predicting the
potential opportunities in the industry, or in detecting the gap for entrants (Nair et al.,
2013, p. 960).
3.3 Business Model vs Strategy
Strategy is primarily concerned with defining the sustainable competitive advantage for
an organization; however it can be viewed from multiple perspectives, such that strategy
is a plan or a road map to obtain a certain strategic position, through defining a set of
unique and consistent activities and choices (Porter, 1996, p. 68). On the other hand,
strategy as a pattern, defines dynamic and flexible choices according to the industry
volatility (Mintzberg, 1987, p. 11; Shafer et al., 2005, p. 203). Successful organizations
are the ones whose business model is dynamic and capable of creating a stream of
temporary competitive advantages on the short run (Augier & Teece, 2008: p. 1202;
Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010, p. 165; Wiggins & Ruefli, 2005, p. 895). In stable
business environment, business model translates operationally the organization strategic
choices and gives a simplified description of the strategy, however, the attempts to
differentiate between them strategy and business model during discontinuity(Baden-
Fuller & Morgan, 2010, p. 168; Benson-Rea et al., 2013, p. 719; Demil & Lecocq,
2010, p. 227; Ghezzi, 2013, p. 1331; Keen & Qureshi, 2006, p. 5). Ghezzi, (2013, p.
1332) argued that during discontinuity, business model should be more dynamic as an
integrative framework for a strategy to support innovation and consistency. Therefore,
Macgrath (2010, p. 248) defines strategy as a discovery and an outcome driven by the
business model maturity process in the long run, this may enable organizations to
overcome the forms of disequilibrium in their performance and preserve the
organizations’ competitive advantage (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 227), such that
business model maturity can be devised through business model innovation.
3.4 Traditional Business Model Limitations
Business model accomplished by organizations over the last years is highly influenced
by the resources based view (RBV). Business model was considered as a static tool for
description or a blueprint that provide knowledge on value creation and revenue
generation (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 228). It focused mainly on investing in the
12
internal capabilities of the organizations to sustain their competitive advantage (Ghezzi,
2013, p. 1333). This traditional view on business models assumes that value creation
occurs in a constant process, given the same strategy, business model and value network
as long as they proved a previous success (Shafer et al., 2005, p. 204). Accordingly, this
may result in two main threats to the organizations. First, it threatens their competitive
advantage, as organizations disregard the fact that their successful business model in the
short run can be copied within the industry or in other industries on the long run (Teece,
2010, p. 179). Second, business model may face a malfunction in any of its dimensions
which may affect the organization performance, concerning responding to the business
environment changes or detecting the potential opportunities (Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p.
228). Furthermore, Volkova & Jakobsone (2013, p. 502) discussed that the recent
financial crisis had a wide impact on the business environment and revealed hidden
weakness in the traditional management practices.
3.5 Business Model Innovation
The limitation discussed above may result in a gap between the business environment
transformations and organizations performance, as shown in figure (1). Accordingly,
organizations realized the need for business model innovation, as a key tool to
transform their underlying management logic; otherwise they might be demised from
their industry (Giesen et al., 2009, p. 6).
Figure 1: Business Environment Transformations
Therefore, the publications on business model innovation were dramatically increased
during the past few years. It is evident that a number of leading journals has produced
special issues on business model innovation such as long range planning (Volume 46,
Issue 6, 2013; Volume 43, Issues 2–3, 2010),), international Journal of Innovation
Management (Volume 17, Issue 1, 2013), Harvard business review (Volume 89, Issue
1/2, 2011) Journal of Intellectual Capital (Volume 13, Issue 3, 2012) and creativity and
innovation management (volume 21, Issue 3, 2012). Furthermore, table (2) summarizes
the recent publications on business model innovation and its corresponding industry, as
a sample to show that business model innovation is a general trend and is highly
Source: Giesen et al., (2009, p.6)
13
essential for different industries. Besides, IBM conducted a study in 2006 on business
model innovation to understand its development in the business environment. This
study showed that 98 percent of the CEOs interviewed confirmed that their companies
would apply business model innovation within 2009-2011. The findings also discussed
that the organizations which has already applied business model innovation, witnessed
improvement in their capabilities, as well as an increase in their operating growth
margins (IBM, 2006, p. 4)
Author(s) Paper name Industry
Bourreau et
al. (2012)
The impact of a radical innovation on
Business models: incremental
adjustments or big bang?
Recorded Music industry
Carande &
Anzevino
(2010)
Beyond turbulent times: transforming
banking business models
Banking industry
Chanal et al.
(2010)
The difficulties involved in developing
business models open to innovation
communities: the case of a crowd
sourcing platform
Start-ups / entrepreneurship
Davey et al.
(2010)
The health of innovation: why open
business models can benefit the
healthcare sector
Health care
Fox-Penner,
(2009)
Fix utilities before they need a rescue Utilities industry
IBM,
(2006)
Driving Innovation Automotive Industry
McNamara
et al. (2013)
Competing Business Models, Value
Creation and Appropriation in English
Football
English Premier League
Nair et al.
(2013)
Service orientation: effectuating
business model innovation
Airline industry advances
Nair et al.
(2012)
Impact of knowledge brokering on
performance heterogeneity among
business models
Airline industry advances
Nair &
Paulose
(2014)
The emergence of green business
models: the case of algae biofuel for
aviation
Energy industry
Richter.
(2011)
Business model innovation for
sustainable energy: German utilities
and renewable energy
Renewable energy
Source: Developed by Authors
Table 2: Business Model Innovation Studies with its Corresponding Industry
3.5.1 Business Model Innovation Definitions
Business model innovation implies changes to the core elements of the organization’s
business model, unlike the normal business changes that address the organizational
efficiency on the operational level (Nair et al., 2013, p. 960). Teece (2010, p. 189)
14
discussed that business model innovation identifies and exploits new opportunities,
additionally it diversifies the organizations’ portfolio. While Huang et al. (2012, p. 980)
explained that “business model involves changes in the customer value propositions,
profit formula redesign, verification of key resources and adjustment of key processes”.
Furthermore, some studies mentioned that business model innovation is a dynamic
process that enables organizations to achieve transformational growth internally and
externally based on the experimentation or trial and error approaches (McGrath, 2010,
p. 255; Meganc, 2008, p. 14; Morris et al., 2005, p. 732). Business model innovation is
a tool to synthesize the way of creating value in a business, introducing deliberate
changes to the organizational logic and a process of progressive refinements. Therefore,
it achieves internal consistency and aligns the organization competitive advantage to the
new circumstances in the business environment (Bucherer el, al., 2012, p. 184;
Chesbrough, 2010, p. 362; Demil & Lecocq, 2010, p. 228; Sosna et al., 2010, p. 387).
This study defines business model innovation as “an outward facing, exploratory and
creative process, that provide organizations with the language and framework to
understand the core space of their existing enterprise and the white space that can
include a new portfolio of opportunities” (Bock et al., 2012, p. 284; Johnson, 2010, p.
20).
3.5.2 Business Model Innovation Features
Business model innovation overcomes the limitations of the traditional business model
by stressing on the importance of the dynamic capabilities and value network
approaches to organizations.
3.5.2.1 Dynamic Capabilities Approach
Business model innovation stresses on the importance of the dynamic capabilities
approach that was overlooked by the traditional business model. The dynamic
capabilities approach proved to be proportionally connected to competitive advantage,
since it explores new alternatives during business model innovation this allows for
efficient and effective ways to exploit the organization’s assets and existing capabilities.
(Accenture, 2011, p. 2; Ghezzi, 2013, p. 1333; Volkova & Jakobsone, 2013, p. 487;
Wu, 2010, p. 28). Business model based only on resource based view, may lead to a
severe consequences, organizations may stuck in the middle by investing inexplicably
on expanding their internal technology and resources than focusing on the industry and
customers’ needs (Bekmezci, 2013, p. 229). Pynnonen et al. (2012, p. 4) discussed that
the resource based view disregard the external environment and external resources.
Giesen et al. (2009, p. 2) have put forth that business model innovation can be
implemented either through industry model innovation, revenue model innovation or
enterprise model innovation as depicted in table (3),
Forms Description
Industry model
innovation
Involves in applying a horizontal move into new industries. This
approach requires a wide investment and have sufficient
resources to manage higher risks
Revenue model
innovation
Involves in applying modifying how companies generate
revenues, either though reconfiguring offerings, and/or
15
introducing new pricing models. This model was highly applied
recently due to the economic crisis.
Enterprise model
innovation
Involves in innovating the structure of the enterprise and the role
it plays in new or existing value chains. This approach is the
most common.
Source: Giesen et al. (2009, p. 2)
Table 3: Forms of Business Model Innovation
3.5.2.2 Value Network Approach
Business model innovation requires a shift in the value creation process from a firm
centric view to a network centric view. Calia et al. (2007, p. 427) defined networks as
“the linkages between organizations in order to create, capture and integrate the many
different skills and knowledge needed to develop complex technologies and bring them
into the market”. This expands the boundary-spanning of the organizations to be part of
the business ecosystems, through the development of external collaborations and
partnerships, upstream systems with suppliers and partners, or downstream systems
with customers and distributors. (Koen et al., 2011, p. 56; Voelpel et al., 2004, p. 268;
Zott & Amit, 2010, p. 15). Moreover, the expansion in systematic collaboration with
external partners allows for open innovation as spill overs, by that this will reduce the
research and development costs, and improve technological innovation, along with the
improvements in the responsiveness of the organizations to the business environment
transformations (Chesbrough, 2006). Furthermore, there is no unified process to manage
the value network, they are carried-out in the context of interactions with multiple
approaches to configure and manage. (Chanel & Coran, 2010, p. 319; Chesbrough,
2006, p. 5; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p. 109).
3.5.3 Business Model Innovation Typology
Koen et al. (2011, p. 54) has designed a typology for business model innovation.
Typologies are frameworks to understand and explain patterns of organizational
similarities and differences. Moreover typologies differ from classification systems, as
the former identifies multiple theoretical types or dimensions, which represents a unique
set or combination of attributes for the phenomenon under exploration. (Benson-Rea et
al., 2013, p. 719) Accordingly, the Business model innovation typology has identified
three interdependent dimensions as follows:
3.5.3.1 Financial Hurdle Rate
This dimension is a key aspect used by organizations to select their projects and
henceforth their business model activities and infrastructure offerings. Barstow &
Media (2013) defined hurdle rate as the minimum expected rate of return predetermined
by finance department according to the organization cost structure and revenue model,
to make decisions concerning new projects. Therefore, the hurdle rate is a financial
benchmark and standard in the decision making process, such as if the profit formula of
any project is lower than the hurdle rate, then it will be terminated at the planning phase.
However projects with higher risks are catered with risk adjusted hurdle rates.
Organizations sets their hurdle rates to support their investment selections based on
concrete financial factors, that contributes to meet the organization’s obligations with
16
respect to stakeholders and shareholders. (National Academy of Sciences, 1994, p. 24;
Williams, 2012, p. 28)
3.5.3.2 Technology Innovation Dimension
This dimension elaborates on increasing the efficiency of the organization’s dynamic
capabilities in managing resources. Such that, technology innovation also includes the
development of technological processes that supports the organization’s business and
competitive advantage (Accenture, 2011, p. 2). Koen et al. (2011, p. 53) has
distinguished the technology innovation dimension into incremental, architectural and
radical innovation.
3.5.3.3 Value Network Dimension
This dimension focuses mainly on the shift towards network perspective by engaging
new partners in the value creation and value capture process, for example expanding the
organizations boundaries through co-development partnerships may improve the
effectiveness the organization dynamic capabilities, increase its effectiveness in
exploiting the existing resources and support the other changes introduced by business
model innovation, (Chesbrough & Schwartz, 2007, p. 55; Pyka et al., 2007, p. 668).
Moreover, it enhances the partner’s competitive advantage in the industry and
strengthens their business model, since a value network is a unique asset for the
organization as it cannot be easily imitated by competitors (Swaminathan & Moorman,
2009, p. 52). Additionally, it allows the sharing of resources, knowledge, risks and
costs. It also gives an edge to access new opportunities for innovation and learning
capabilities which can be difficult to attain by other means.
3.6 Business Model Innovation Approaches
Koen et al. (2011, p. 54) have proposed business model innovation typology to explain
how organizations succeed in the technology innovation dimensions while they fail in
the other two dimensions, they argue that this typology is a unified tool for researchers..
Furthermore, this study finds this typology relevant to answer the research question,
thereby the study analysis can use these three dimensions to evaluate and differentiate
between the two approaches proposed for business model innovation; the first approach
is innovating the existing business model while the second is developing multiple
business models, however we have made reconfigurations in these dimensions, into
hurdle rate, technology and partners value network and customers value network, as
these updated dimensions is more relevant to the objectives of this study.
3.6.1 Innovating the Existing Business Model
Innovating the existing business model approach transforms the organization logic
towards new alternatives for the value creation and value capture (Aspara et al., 2013, p.
460). Bucherer et al. (2012, p. 194) demonstrated that this transformation is a process
and not a one-time event, it follows a top down management approach, and it affects the
organization broadly by continuous organizational restructuring and reconfigurations.
(Carande & Anzevino, 2012, p. 37; Markides, 2006, p. 20; Scott-Kemmins, 2012, p. 52;
Wang et al., 2009, p. 464). Moreover, De Wit & Meyer (2010, p. 174-177) explained
that innovating the existing business model can have two patterns as shown in figure
17
(2). The first pattern shows that the transformation is implemented in a periodical
manner according to the industry needs, while the second one shows that the
transformation is a continuous process, it reflects the internal and external industry
needs to defend their competitive advantage.
Source: De Wit & Meyer (2010, p. 174-177)
Figure 2: Patterns of Innovating Existing Business Model
Furthermore, this approach of business model innovation is usually a proactive, and it is
triggered by internal or external reasons such as exploiting new opportunities, adapting
to new circumstances within the industry, or modifying the existing business model
efficiency (Bucherer et al., 2012, p. 195; Cavalcante et al., 2011, p. 1337). Moreover,
Aspara et al. (2013, p. 461) discussed this approach may face inter-organization
cognition challenges, that can be summarized in a set of factors, such as the legitimacy
of the existing business model, the satisfaction of shareholders and stakeholders, and
finally the reputation ranking of the organization in the industry within the community
of competitors, financial markets and society.
3.6.1.1 Innovating Existing Business Model vs Product Innovation
Markides (2006, p. 20) has differentiated between innovating the existing business
model and product innovation, innovating the existing business model does not
necessarily lead to a development of new products or services. On the contrary, Huang
& Rice (2010, p. 3) discussed that product innovation is focused on improving the
offerings defined by the organization business model on the technical and operational
levels, such as improving technological and manufacturing or production performance.
“Organizations have many processes and a stronger shared sense of how to innovate
technology, than they do about how to innovate business models”. (Chesbrough cited in
Bucherer et al., 2012, p. 183) Therefore, an organization’s success can be explained by
its ability to differentiate between product innovation and innovating their existing
business model. Product innovation is not sufficient enough to achieve a competitive
advantage, such that business model innovation complements product innovation, (Amit
and Zott, 2012, p. 42) business model innovation aligns the technology and process
innovation with the organization economic value creation (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom,
2002, p. 5). Organizations may use product innovation to achieve a technological
breakthrough while innovating their existing business model innovation sustains their
industry breakthrough (Bucherer et al., 2012, p. 194).
18
3.6.1.2 Evaluating the Typology Dimensions
Innovating existing business model is triggered by sustaining innovation, according to
Christensen (cited in Caldwell, 2012, p. 28) sustaining innovation is serving the same
market segment with a higher performance. Therefore, sustaining innovation is based on
incremental technology innovation. Carande & Anzevino (2012, p. 37) has given insight
that innovating existing business model requires a transition period between the old and
the new perspectives in the existing business model. Accordingly the business model
typologies will be changed as follows:
a) Hurdle Rate
Innovating the existing business model is achieved through new reconfigurations in the
organizational performance logic, such that targeting the same market segments by
developing the existing offerings. Therefore, for organizations in this case there is no
need to change their hurdle rate or adjusted risk hurdle rate. Moreover, Koen et al.
(2011, p. 54) argued that changing the financial hurdle rate within an existing business
model is a complex process, restricted by limit the existing cost structure, profit
formulas and shareholder expectations.
b) Technology and Partners Value Network
Sustaining innovation concentrates on improving and exploiting technology levels
within the organization, incremental innovation can be the tools for sustaining
innovation, since it can develop new offerings, apply changes to the existing offerings,
business processes, and supplier manufacturing technology, moreover it enhances the
trust and reciprocity with the existing supply chain partners (Han et al., 2012, p. 297;
Henderson & Clark, 1990, p. 9). Incremental technology innovation is correlated with
investing in the existing value network, since it can be developed internally and within
the existing value network in organizations (Koen et al., 2011, p. 55). Moreover,
organizations expand their knowledge and boundaries through new relationships with
mainly heterogeneous partners, who provide supplementary knowledge and resources.
These partners can vary such as suppliers, distribution channel partners, actors of a
gatekeeper position for specific markets. This expansion in the organization boundary
can help the organization to replicate its values across different markets, achieve
economies of scale, and increase the perceived value of their offerings (Knudsen, 2007,
p. 122; Moller & Torronen, 2003, p. 112).
c) Customer Value Network
Traditionally, business model used to concentrate on customers as the core of the
business model and a primary target for the organization’s offerings (Frankenberger et
al., 2013, p. 673). However, the innovating existing business model seeks the
integration of the customers in the decision making process as active players in the
value creation process, such that organizations may share resources with them, and
introduce mutual open community dialogues (Pynnonen et al., 2012, p. 5; Vargo &
Lusch, 2008, p. 2). Henceforth customer networks emphasis customers as a guiding
tool, and ideas and feedback providers for the new offerings (Hienerth et al., 2011, p.
346). This may guide organizations to understand the unfulfilled needs of the customers
and the different consumption process and requirements among same segment
customers and pave the way for mass customization (Hienerth et al., 2011, p. 347).
19
3.6.2 Multiple Business Models
The second alternative for organizations for business model innovation, is constructing
an entirely new business model beside their existing business model, usually this new
business model starts relatively small compared to the main business model (Markides,
2008, p. 13). Multiple business models as a concept is a shift from considering business
model on the corporate level a single recipe view into complex and multiple recipes that
forms a complete dinner at the end, in other words organizations shift toward business
models portfolio which may complement and compete with each other, yet serves the
end goal of the competitive advantage and open innovation (Der Meer, 2007, p. 196;
Sabatier et al., 2013, p. 434). According to Moller & Torronen (2003, p. 112), “the new
business model must enlarge the organization and the industry economic pie, either by
attracting new customers into the market or by encouraging existing customers to
consume more”. Moreover, the new business model is a discovery for a fundamentally
different business model in an existing business (Markides, 2006, p. 20). However, this
alternative is more challenging and difficult, because the organization may face severe
strategic consequences on the internal and the external level if the organization fails to
manage the new business model (Chesbrough, 2007, p. 16; Der Meer, 2007, p. 197;
Koen et al., 2012, p. 55; Masanell & Tarziján, 2012, p. 132) Furthermore, authors have
classified two types of requirements that can inspire organizations to design a new
business model:
- Proactive requirement, which means the availability of an opportunity for the
organization to seize white space in the business environment by either serving new
customers or creating new markets. Moreover, new business model seeks to disrupt the
industry and redefining its profitability structure, through implementing radical
technology and tailored activities to serve a new customer segment. This segment may
include non-consumers whose needs were neglected for a long time, as the existed
offerings were expensive or complicated for them. Therefore, new business model
overcomes the existing consumption barriers in the industry, which can be due to lack
of wealth, skills and access (Chesbrough, 2007, p. 8; Giesen et al., 2009, p. 8; Johnson,
2010, p. 75; Masanell & Tarziján, 2012, p. 132; Srinivasan, 2011, p. 140). Markides &
Oyon (2010, p. 28) discussed an organization may decide to design a new business
model for markets which has high potential and bigger in size compared to the existing
one. Therefore, new business model expose new threats to the existing and the potential
competitors.
- Reactive requirement, which can be justified by two reasons. First, if the organizations
use the new business model to respond to a strategic threats introduced by
competitor(s), who are usually a new market entrants. These new entrants may disrupt
the market either by low cost approach, or by introducing a redefinition and new
attributes for existing products or services in the industry (Markides, 2008). Second, the
new business model can be used to support the organization main business model which
may suffer from malfunction and low performance in the industry (Markides, 2008, p.
143).
3.6.2.1 Evaluating the Typology Dimensions
Based on the previous discussion, designing new business model in both cases shares a
common characteristic; the concentration on disruptive innovation, targeting a new
20
customer segment. Accordingly, Anthony et al. (2004, p. 8) mentioned that the
organization may face high uncertainty and difficulties in identifying the convenient a
strategies to approach for the new customers, as the organization is not familiar with
their expectations. Therefore business model typology dimensions have aggressive
changes in the multiple business model approach compared to innovating the existing
business model.
a) Hurdle Rate
Srinivasan (2011, p. 141) mentioned that in the designing and implementation phase of
the new business model, it may not always be possible to anticipate its performance,
consequently organization usually follows even a discovery driven plans, therefore
organizations expect a higher risk rate than normal level. Moreover, organizations may
realize that the new business model requires a long time intervals to grow and generate
profit (Markides, 2008, p. 19). Consequently, organizations usually identify new hurdle
rate based on the new business model profit formula.
b) Technology and Partners Value Network
Since the new business model implies disruptive innovation, and radical technology
innovation. Therefore, organizations tend to ask new questions, to find new solutions
for its core technology different to change the rules of the game in the industry
(Henderson & Clark, 1990, p. 9). Accordingly organizations tend to expand their value
network with homogeneous partners who provide complementary knowledge and
enable developing exploratory innovation. Such that, these partners may be competitors,
research and development partners, to share their complementary skills and resources
which are capable to develop and implement new products to market or enhance a
market expansion (Knudsen, 2007, p. 122; Moller & Torronen, 2003, p. 112).
c) Customers Value Network
Radical innovation is not only disrupting the industry rules and affecting competitors,
but also customers such that the new offerings may dramatically change the existing
consumption behaviours and customers’ preferences. (Narayanan & O’Connor, 2010, p.
92) Since the new business model can do this by either introducing new value
propositions in lower cost to the over served customers, or creating a new market
segment for the underprivileged ones (Koen et al., 2011, p. 53). Furthermore, if the aim
of serving the new customers is to disrupt the disruptor, then the established
organizations need to narrow down the market and focus on a different new customer
segment than the one segmented by the disruptor.
3.7 Summary
The literature review begins with a general discussion on business model and business
model dimensions, such that this study defines business model as “the rationale of how
an organization creates, delivers and captures value to different stakeholders within the
value network” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009, p. 14), Moreover the study is based on
the business model ontology that defines business model dimensions in four main
dimensions; Infrastructure, Cutomers, Profit formula and Value proposition. The study
afterward discusses the triggers of business environment transformation, that can be
explained by discontinuity and coopetition, moreover Nair et al. (2013, p. 961)
discussed that business environment transformation can be summarized by three factors
the industry turbulence, internal rapid changes and the increasing level of uncertainty.
21
The study linked the business environment transformation to the business model to
investigate the relationship between strategy and business model as shown in figure (3),
and to identify the limitations of the traditional business model.
Source: Developed by Authors
Figure 3: Relationship between Strategy and Business Model
The authors have introduced business model innovation as an alternative view to the
traditional business model and it was defined as an outward facing, exploratory and
creative process, that provide organizations with the language and framework to
understand the core space of their existing enterprise and the white space that can
include new portfolios of opportunities (Bock, 2010, p. 284; Johnson, 2010, p. 20).
Business model innovation has three main dimensions the hurdle rate, the technology
and partners value network, and the customer value network. Such that, the discussion
on business model innovation, showed that business model dimensions introduce core
changes to the organization, specifically addressing the traditional business model
dimensions as shown in figure (4).
Source: Developed by Authors
Figure 4: Relationship between Business Models and Business Model Innovation
Business model innovation has two main features the dynamic capabilities approach
that complement the resource based view approach of the traditional business model and
the value network approach. Furthermore, Moller & Torronen (2003, P. 112) explained
22
that increasing efficiency, enhancing effectiveness and exploiting the suppliers network
functions are expected benefits of expanding the boundaries of the organization using
the value network as shown in figure (5).
Source: Developed by Authors
Figure 5: Benefits of Boundary Spanning of the Value Network
3.7.1 Literature Review Propositions
We have concluded a number of relationships between the dimensions of business
model innovation typology with regard to each approach of business model innovation.
Such that, the discussions in literature review showed that the innovating existing
business model approach focuses on achieving a sustaining innovation, Organization
may stick to use the existing hurdle rate as a benchmark for the new offerings decisions.
Accordingly, organization may invest heavily on the incremental technology
innovation, and the collaboration with heterogeneous partners, moreover organizations
tend to engage customers in the decision making process. On the other hand, multiple
business models seek disruptive innovation, in order to either disrupt the industry or a
disruptor. Therefore, organizations tend to invest in radical technology innovation.
Moreover, Organizations may develop a new cost structures and revenue model and
accordingly a new hurdle rate. The value network seeks collaborations with
homogeneous partners and continuous interaction with the customers of the new
segment to understand their requirements.
Therefore, a dual case study approach will be used in chapter five to discuss the two
approaches of business model empirically within the automotive industry to expand the
knowledge and provide new insights on business model innovation approaches. These
propositions are not testable, and the study will propose a theoretical framework and
checklist based on the literature review propositions discussed above and with
comparative case study findings.
23
Chapter 4 – RESEARCH DESIGN
This chapter discusses research preconceptions, assumptions, and the purpose of the
study. The chapter proceeds with a discussion on the case study selection and data
collection mechanism and with an elaboration on the interview process. This chapter
also provides an explanation for the relevant quality criteria for this study, and the
ethical considerations.
4.1 Preconceptions
The interest to conduct a study in the domain of business model innovation started in
the first semester of MSPME master’s degree program at Heriot Watt University in
Edinburgh, UK. Given the fact, business model is one of the key modules in this
master’s degree program, it provides us with an opportunity to work on analysing the
business model of a number of organizations, and this conceptualized the authors'
understanding on the topic. Both authors discussed their shared interest in business
model during this semester. Moreover, we had some discussions on business model
innovation during our third semester in the same master program at Umeå University in
the project management classes. This developed our interest to pursue our study in this
area. Despite the different backgrounds and domains of the professional experience
between the two authors, business model innovation bridged a common interest within
our diversity. One of the authors has an engineering background, while the other has
studied economics and management. Therefore, the authors contributed to the
understanding of each other’s on different aspects and dimensions of business model
innovation. Furthermore, both authors were interested in stakeholder management,
specifically customer focused relationship development so it was an extra asset to form
this collaboration together.
4.2 Assumptions
We started to be more specific and to narrow down the general interest in the business
model innovation, by conducting an extensive review on the topic in the literature. We
found out the topic is still under development, which raised an interest to conduct this
study. We have reviewed hundreds of articles on business model, business model
innovation, co-creation, value network, stakeholders, technology, process and product
innovation, complexity, coopetition and other topics, which have influenced directly,
and indirectly enhance our knowledge and understanding on the topic.
We found that few articles has differentiated between business model innovation
approaches into innovating existing one and dual or multiple business models on the
corporate level. One of these studies was conducted by Koen et al. (2011), which used
as a base for our study. This study is the only study we found that provides certain
Project Initiation
•Introduction
•Research Methodology
Project Planning
•Literature Review
•Research Design
Project Execution
•Case Study Background
•Case Study Analysis
Project Close-out
•Discussion
•Conclusion
24
criteria to differentiate between the two approaches based on the typology discussed in
literature review earlier. However, they did not provide an overview of the business
model innovation drivers, impacts, the internal organizational requirements and its
relationship with the strategy. It also provided some practical examples of organizations
that applied business model innovation, however based on a cross-sectional approach.
On the other side, we found another study conducted by Markides & Oyon (2010),
which focused on providing organizations with an overview and recipe on how and
when they can introduce the multiple business model innovation approach, however it
didn’t discuss how they can expand the advantages of the innovating existing business
model.
4.3 Purpose of the Research
The key objective of this study is contributing to the existing literature on business
model and business model innovation, by investigating the relationship between
business model and strategy, the drivers for business model innovation, and
differentiating between innovating the existing business model and multiple business
model as the main approaches for business model innovation. Based on our
epistemology views, we believed that a dual case study approach can be relevant to this
study, such that the first case study shows the application of innovating existing
business model innovation, while the other focus on the multiple business model
approach. The findings of each study will be compared with the other, and against the
initial propositions derived from the literature review. Moreover, one of the objectives
of this study is proposing a guiding framework and checklist for decision makers in the
organizations on business model innovation, that differentiates between the dimensions
its two business model innovation approaches.
4.4 Case Study Selection
Furthermore, we identified criteria for selecting an industry and organizations that can
support this study objective. These criteria can be summarized as follows. First, an
industry that is sensitive to the business environment turbulence. Second, an industry
that any of the authors can have a pre-understanding of its circumstances, either through
previous knowledge, insights or work experience. Maanen (2000, p. 58) discussed that
pre-understanding improves the opportunity cost of time used to build basic knowledge.
Third, an established organization applied business model innovation recently either to
exploit an opportunity in the industry or to improve its performance in the industry.
Lastly, an organization that is eligible to measure its performance and business model
innovation against the three dimensions of the business model innovation typology.
Based on the previous criteria, we found that the automotive industry particularly the
small sized passenger cars segment, is one of the relevant industries to this study, since
it is highly sensitive to the different forms business environment turbulence; moreover
one of the authors had a working experience in the automotive industry for more than
five years. Accordingly, we reviewed a set of different organizations such as Renault,
Volkswagen, Fiat, Tata motors and others, however we found the Tata motors and Fiat
meet our organization selection criteria and fit to answer our research questions. Such
that, Tata Motors has multiple business model approach. Whereas Fiat used a chain of
innovation on multiple aspects on the organization level, including business model
innovation to overcome the consequences of the crisis and to expand its market shares.
25
4.5 Data Collection
A number of scholars (e.g. Baxter & Jack, 2008; Gillham, 2000; Yin, 2003) discussed
that data collection can be applied through different methods such as interviews,
documents, observations, records; they also agreed that combining two or more sources
can enhance the research reliability. Yin (2003, p. 101) mentioned that these sources
should not be evaluated in isolation, as they may complement each other, he explained
further that a good case study is the one that can combine more than one source to
preserve the case study strategy. Therefore, based on our epistemology views, we used
multiple data collection methods, using interviews and documents to have a holistic
vision of the domain of this study and it facilitates for a triangulation process (Baxter &
Jack, 2008, p. 554; Gillham, 2000, p. 30).
4.5.1 Documents
It is the source for a secondary data that is already published, It can be classified into
internal sources that is attainable through the organization representatives, organization
website or annual reports, or external sources through informal emails, policy
statements, , international newspaper, databases (Gillham, 2000, p. 21; Hair et al., 2007,
p. 120; Yin, 2003, p. 101). This study relied on secondary data for multiple reasons.
First, we found wide information published which is directly and indirectly relevant and
linked to the dimension of business model innovation typology for both organizations.
Second, the secondary data is generally objective and can be verified and cross checked
through multiple sources (Gnyawali & Park, 2011, p. 653). Third, it formulates a solid
knowledge on the business model innovation process within the two organizations, and
helped us to design the interview questions efficiently to ask the right questions that
supplement and complement the findings of the secondary data. The secondary data for
this study are newspapers, academic databases, corporate annual reports, websites, and
published studies on one of the two organizations. Moreover, the authors were alert to
continuously evaluate the collected secondary data to preserve the alignment between
the available secondary data and the research question and objectives (Hair et al., 2003,
p. 130).
4.5.2 Interviews
Interview is a source of primary novel data from its original sources and was not
published before. The interview method is classified as an efficient tool to investigate a
certain phenomenon that cannot be directly observed, or need to be studied on a
longitudinal scale (Creswell, 2009, p. 178). Nigel (2004, p. 12) mentioned that
interviews can have different forms such as unstructured, semi structured, in depth and
exploratory interviews. However, this study used interviews as an assisting tool to
complement and validate our findings from the secondary data. Therefore, we choose to
conduct semi structured interviews since it is more flexible to explore new aspects
during the discussion with respondents.
4.6 Document Collection Process
The study is mainly based on secondary data; thereby secondary data collection process
was prudently planned. First, company websites and annual reports from official
26
company websites are collected. Second, published articles after year 2000 which are
based on either of these companies are studied. Third, relevant newspapers articles were
considered. After this three set of document or data collection, this data is divided and
stored in eight distinct themes namely background, recent news, facts & figures, hurdle
rate, technology, partners, suppliers and customers relationship. Further this data was
used to form interview questions and for the study analysis.
4.7 Interview Process
The study divided the interview process into two phases, pre and post interview. The
pre-interview phase included designing the interview questions and contacting the
potential interviewees, while the post interview phase focused on sharing transcript with
the respondents for approval and editing if needed.
4.7.1 Pre-Interview
The interview questions were carefully designed to meet the qualitative study
requirements defined by Nigel (2004, p. 11) discussed that researchers should be aware
of the probability that their presuppositions may influence the interview process,
therefore this study used the interview requirements identified by Nigel to minimize the
probability of such incident. These requirements summarized in designing open ended
questions and to avoid imposing certain perception or a specific structure on
interviewees. Moreover we have designed the interview questions based on the captured
knowledge from the initial propositions generated from literature review and the
findings from the secondary data, we have designed two interview templates for each
case study as shown in Appendix IV and V. However, the two templates have the same
structure of four sections; background, technology and partners’ value network,
customers’ value network and future plans for business model innovation.
The literature review and secondary data showed that business model innovation is a top
down management approach in the two case studies; therefore we tried to make
interviews with employees at the top management level, accordingly we have been in
contact with seven managers in total from both organizations, we got a reply from five
managers to conduct the interview with them. However, we had only three interviews
due to the tight time schedule of the other two, the three respondents are all managers
representing multiple disciplines as shown in the Table (4).
Name Designation Experience Company Date Duration
Maurizio
Consalvo
Product
Development
Manager
30 Years Alfa Romeo,
FIAT
3 Jan
2014
50 mins
Rakesh Bhat Project
Manager
10 Years Tata Motors 9 Dec
2013
40 mins
Ramacharda
P Madiwale
Project
Manager
11 Years Tata Motors 21 Dec
2013
25 mins
Source: Developed by Authors
Table 4: Interviewee Details
27
4.7.2 Post Interview
The interviews were conducted on Skype; each interview approximately lasted for 25-
50 minutes as depicted in Table (4). The interviews focused on the business model
innovation dimensions, and we were keen that the interviews reflect the real knowledge
and practices. Therefore, we tried to minimize the misunderstanding and
misinterpretations of the interview answers to the minimum level, therefore we sent
each interview transcript to the correspondent interviewee, to confirm the content and
notify us for any editing if needed.
4.8 Research Quality Criteria
Yin (1994, p. 32) identified key tests to evaluate the quality of a qualitative research that
is based on case studies. The tests are concerned mainly with the validity and reliability
of the research findings. He discussed that validity evaluates to what extend the finding
of the research reflects the phenomena under investigation, according to Maanen (2000,
p. 91) validity is describing how researchers succeeded in fulfilling their research
objectives rather than anything else. Moreover, Yin (1994, p. 33) divided validity intro
3 forms; internal, external and construct validity. In contrast, according to Yin (1994, p.
35) and Maanen (2000, p. 91) reliability evaluates the operations of the study; it reflects
to what extend a study can be replicated. Silverman (2000, p. 185) reliability can be a
challenge in a qualitative research, if it does not provide sufficient enough information
on its implementation process. Therefore, we have evaluated this study against these
research quality criteria as follows.
Reliability: We have used multiple methods for data collection to construct the case
studies, such that we have used semi structured interviews and documents. The
interview templates are provided in the Appendix V and VI, while the documents are
properly cited and references, moreover most of the documents are available online
through the organizations' websites and other trustworthy external sources such as
international journals, magazines, newspapers and databases, including but not limited
to The Economist, Financial times, and Business Source Premier.
Construct validity: According to Yin (1994, p. 34), this criteria focus on the
operational measures used to validate the selected concepts, in order to minimize and
eliminate the probability of personal subjectivity. Accordingly, we have evaluated our
case study based on the literature review, specifically to the business model typology
dimensions. Moreover, we used multiple methods of data collection to avoid
misconception or wrong interpretation of the case studies content.
Internal validity: According to Yin (1994, p. 35), this criteria focus on the casual
relationships. However, this criterion is relevant to the explanatory case studies with the
objective of understanding relationships between a set of variables. Accordingly, we
excluded this criterion, since it is not relevant to the objective of this study.
External validity: According to Yin (1994, p. 36), this criteria investigates to what
extend the case study findings can be generalized. Accordingly, this study can be
generalized only based on the proposed framework.
28
4.9 Ethical Consideration
Ethical consideration is an essential element and should be evaluated during the
different stages of the research process, according to Vogt et al. (2012, p. 307) and
Sekaran (2003, p. 18) ethical considerations should be taken into consideration starting
from the selection of the research questions, research design, sampling techniques, data
collection and research analysis. In this study, we have followed a set of ethical
considerations proposed by Hair et al. (2007, p. 66) with regard to the interview
process. Such that, we designed a semi structured interview with open ended questions
to avoid influencing the responses, we have also avoided any coercion practices with
respondents to generate certain information. We provided the respondents with
comprehensive information on the research purpose and objectives before the interview.
Moreover, we respected the respondents’ privacy and confidentiality; therefore we have
their permission to use their surname and their corresponding organization position
during the analysis. Furthermore, we have approved any modifications to the interview
transcript upon their request. On the other hand, we have concentrated on the citations
and referencing process for all the secondary data sources, and we focused on
interpreting them efficiently according to their original context.
29
Chapter 5 – CASE STUDY BACKGROUND
This chapter introduces case study of Fiat and Tata Motors. The chapter begins with
Fiat, it provides the background, an overview of the different crisis faced Fiat and its
recovery. This chapter proceeds further by introducing background on Tata motors and
Tata Nano, and the impacts of Tata Nano on the industry and the current challenges
faced by Tata Nano.
5.1 Case Study (1): Fiat
Fiat is a case study for an organization that applied business model innovation, through
innovating existing business model approach to improve its organization performance
internally and in the industry.
5.1.1 Company Background
Fiat is an automotive focused industrial group, based in Turin, Italy. Fiat is world’s
sixth largest car manufacturer and Italy’s largest car manufacturer. Currently, brands
under Fiat Automobiles are FIAT, Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Ferrari, Maserati, Abarth and
Iveco etc. Fiat has an open innovation culture and they have achieved good recognition
in terms of technological innovation and for superior technology. It is recognized
mainly as an engineering driven company. Fiat is the only manufacturer which has been
awarded for ‘The European car of the year’ title for 12 times over the last 40 years. Fiat
has a broad product range of broad range of customers through different brands,
however, 84% of sales still accounts from A-segment (small cars) and B-segment
(hatchback cars). (Fiat Annual Report, 2011; Fiat SPA, 2013; Fiat Wiki, 2013) They
focus on other car industry segments with their niche brands such as Ferrari, Mesareti,
etc. Appendix II summarizes fiat offerings and segments.
Moreover, Fiat has a significant presence in the markets of Europe and Brazil (Latin
America). Fiat in 2012 had 6.40% of the European market share, and 23.10% of the
Brazilian market share. (Focus2Move, 2013; WSJ, 2012) In recent years, Fiat is
expanding its market share in North American and Asian markets. Recently Fiat has
formed an alliance with Chrysler, which increased their market share in North American
market to 11.5% and currently they are fourth largest manufacturer in US. Moreover,
they have developed joint ventures with different partners in different countries such as
Asia, Turkey, Italy, Seberia and others. Fiat operates 77 research and development
centers, including 37 in Italy, 16 in NAFTA, 15 in Europe, five in Latin America and
four in other regions. (Autozine, 2013)
Project Initiation
•Introduction
•Research Methodology
Project Planning
•Literature Review
•Research Design
Project Execution
•Case Study Background
•Case Study Analysis
Project Close-out
•Discussion
•Conclusion
30
5.1.2 Fiat Crisis
Since 1988 to 2004, Fiat had witnessed severe crisis and its consequences which lead to
the down trend in organizational performance as depicted through Fiat’s operating
income which was under huge loss as shown in figure (6), moreover Fiat approached a
virtual bankruptcy by 2002. (Bloomberg, 2003) Fiat crisis was triggered by multiple
external and internal factors as discussed below.
External factors such as the emergence
of Korean car manufacturers in Europe
that increased the competition. The
change in the Italian government
objectives, such that the government cut
its funds to Fiat, and diverted its priorities
and regulations to small and medium scale
industry. In parallel, there was a big
increase in road tax for cars of A and B-
segment from 13% to 19% increasing the
overall car prices affecting sales
eventually. Furthermore, due to the
change in government regulations, the
government financial support for Fiat was
minimised to the least levels, which
resulted in an internal financial crisis.
Source: Morrison (2006)
Figure 6: Fiat’s Operating Profit/Loss
Internal factors, Fiat witnessed a number of changes in the top management; this
affected aggressively the future growth plans and vision, and consequently performance.
There were even delays in the execution of their plans which coupled with unfavourable
events to create huge impact. In the meantime, there was reduction of number of
employees which affected negatively the internal competences. Furthermore, the top
management was diverted from Fiat core business of serving small sized cars to expand
its niche segment cars through Alfa Romeo and Ferrari acquisition, this imposed new
and unexpected financial obligation on of Fiat at that time. (Volpato, 2009, p. 1-3;
Whitford & Enrietti, 2005, p. 776-778).
5.1.3 Fiat Recovery from Crisis
Fiat used business model innovation to improve its organization’s core logic of doing
business. This was applied through the vision of the new CEO Sergio Marchionne who
was appointed in 2004 and introduced significant changes in organization culture.
Consalvo (2014) highlighted that “the first keyword is accountability, in our vision
management plays a great role in the organization and responsibilities must be higher
than the privilege, the idea is to increase accountability by defining clear
responsibilities. (…..) The second important cultural change was leadership, the
capability to lead a change in the company and the capability in leading people. This is
very important for a manager to involve spirit of the company, to show a clear picture
of the future and show a right ground connection inside the organization. Applying also
negative solutions and unconventional methods, to ensure that what we design in our
PowerPoint presentations is able to become reality.”
31
Additionally, Marchionne introduced a restructuring that focussed on Fiat’s core
business the small sized car segment. Such that, Fiat restructuring plans included the re-
launch of old brands, and the expansion the product range of small sized cars.
Moreover, Fiat reduced time to market of cars from 4 years to just 18 months. Besides,
Fiat also changed its perspective towards its employee, to be more employee and
customers’ centric company. (Marchionne, 2008, p. 45-47; Volpato, 2009, p. 6-8;
Whitford & Enrietti, 2005, p. 780-781).
These changes and restructuring have contributed significantly to improve Fiat sales and
operating income (EBIT) as shown in table (5).
Year Sales in units EBIT in million euros
2004 1,766,000 -1,412
2005 1,697,300 -818
2006 1,980,300 727
2007 2,233,800 635
2008 2,152,500 460
2009 2,150,700 217
2010 2,081,800 515
2011 3,966,000 1876
Source: Ferrari (2013)
Table 5: Fiat Sales and EBIT
32
5.2 Case Study (2): Tata Motors
Tata Motor is a case study for an organization which applied multiple business models,
Tata Motors disrupted the industry by serving a new customer segment whose needs
were neglected in the automotive industry.
5.2.1 Company Background
Tata Motors Limited is India's largest automobile company established in 1945. It is one
of the 32 publicly listed enterprises under the Tata Group, India’s largest business
conglomerate. Tata Motors strategy witnessed a shift from investing in capacities and
process-building toward customer centric orientation, more investments in market
research and alliances to introduce new and competitive products (Srivastava, 2007).
Such that in 2005, Tata Motors launched the Tata Ace, India's first indigenously
developed mini-truck, Tata Motors formed joint ventures with partners in Brazil and
Thailand to share the manufacturing of new vehicles. Moreover Tata Motors expanded
their product range by the new acquisitions for international brands such as Jaguar Land
Rover. (Tata Motors, 2013) Furthermore, figure (7) summarize Tata Motors investments
since 1945 until 2012.
Source: IBEF Automotives (2011)
Figure 7: Tata Motors Timeline
5.2.2 Tata Nano
In 2008, Tata Motors had a wide attention in the automotive industry by introducing
Tata Nano or the people’s car (Singh, 2012, p. 50); Tata Nano was listed as one of the
most important cars in the world since 1908 by Time magazine. Tata Nano begin its
idea development in 2003, Nano falls in the disruptive innovation category within Tata
Motors portfolio, its idea, manufacturing and distribution succeeded in disrupting the
Indian and the international automotive industry (Jain, 2013). Ramsinghani (2010, p.
69) mentioned that “Tata Nano was hailed as a milestone in automotive history as it
33
illustrated how engineering could be used to open markets in a country where per
capita income is around $1,000 a year”
5.2.2.1 Tata Nano Customer Segment
Tata Motors planned to create a new market by introducing Nano as a low budget car to
a new customer segment that represented the bottom of the pyramid (Tripathy et al.,
2012, p. 58). Especially to the Indian automotive market, where low and middle class
citizens is a wide part of the aggregate population, however they could not afford the
existed offerings of the passenger cars and use heavily the two and three wheel vehicles
instead. This segment had a need for lower budget cars that was neglected for a long
time, such that only eight in a thousand Indians could afford to own a car.
(Fitzsimmons, 2008; Hagel & Brown, 2008; Madiwale, 2013; Manjeet, 2008; Rowley et
al., 2008, p. 30). Tata Motors realized this opportunity in the market as shown in figure
(8), and the anticipated growth for the population size in India, according to Beinhocker
et al. (2007, p. 54) study, the middle class in India is expected to grow from 318 million
in 2007 into 583 million by 2025.
Madiwale (2013) “Nano is the cheapest car available with good interior space and
features, small car easy to drive and park in a congested city traffic. Moreover, Nano is
important for Tata because it creates a new market segment for low income customers
Source: Sehgal et al. (2009, p. 3)
Figure 8: Indian Automotive Industry (Segment vs Price)
5.2.3 Industry Turbulence
The automotive industry before Tata Nano production had some attempts to produce
cars for a low-cost segment. For example in 2002, Toyota international launched
multipurpose vehicle project, however Toyota approach was adding knowledge and
value to the corporation though an interaction suppliers in multiple locations, this has
significantly increased cost. In India, Maruti 800 was cheapest car which was available
in the Indian market before Nano (Srivastava, 2009) as shown in figure (8), followed by
Reva electric car was an urban 2-seater car.
Moreover, when Tata Motors announced about Tata Nano production, the industry was
alert to the potentials of a new market defined by value for money segment. According
to Madiwale (2013) “Nano has changed game rules. Now every manufacturer is trying
34
to have vehicle in this segment for example Maruti Alto 800 or Hyundai EON”, Table
(6) summarizes the aggressive responses from competitors to Tata Nano after launch.
Company/Model Strategic Approach Description
GM Saturn
Create a new brand. Small cars with limited features and
performance from reputed manufacturers.
VW Skoda &
Renault Dacia
Reviving an existing
brand.
Entry-level models from large established
automobile manufacturers.
Daewoo & GM
Chevrolet
Rebrand existing
brand.
New cars with less than 3 years old but
with a broad range of size, performance
and features.
Aixam
Value sub-brand Quadricycle vehicles which are very small
compared to normal cars with its weight
just 350 kg and max speed of 45 km/h.
Maruti Suzuki Reconfiguration The production of Maruti 800, the direct
competitor to Nano was stopped and
replaced by Maruti Suzuki Alto, which has
more features and the same price range of
Maruti 800.
Bajaj Auto
Limited
New products Bajaj is leading the 2-wheeler segment, and
planned to introduce ‘Bajaj RE 60’ a
‘quadricycle’ vehicle for Indian market
Source: Wells 2010 (p. 449,450)
Table 6: Competitors Response to Tata Nano
5.2.4 Nano Challenges
Despite Nano witness success after launching in the Indian markets and other markets
outside India such as Indonesia. However, afterward Nano faced a number of challenges
in the Indian market; one of them is connected to one of its business model dimensions,
especially the customer dimension. Such that, some of the customers were diverted
from Nano, since it is the cheapest and common people car, some were concerned that
Nano is an inferior product. Nano team realised this challenge lately in India, and now
they have further plans to re-launch the car with a new vision (ENS Economic Bureau,
2013).
Madiwale (2013) “The main challenge is that we introduce this car as common man’s
car so the people from 2 wheeler segment can upgrade for 4-wheeler vehicle. Now we
are taking force ahead and pushing this car for young generation also, where a college
going kid or a woman they can also think of this vehicle”
35
Chapter 6 – CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
This chapter has two parts. The first part explores Fiat’s strategy, then proceeds with
evaluating the business model innovation dimensions against the existed business model
and the new changes introduced by innovating existing business model approach. This
part summarizes the difference between Fiat pre and post business model innovation.
The second part explores Tata Nano strategy and its business model innovation
dimensions, and it summarizes how Tata Nano business model is disruptive to the
industry.
3.8 Case Study (1): Fiat
3.8.1 Fiat Introduction
Fiat strategy witnessed multiple changes during the nineties and early twenties, such
that Fiat strategy had a new perspective toward international expansions, in different
countries instead of being a local based manufacturer in Turin, Italy. “It is quite
impossible to survive in current market situation without global approach, such as
without a good standardization and line-up” (Consalvo, 2014).
Consalvo (2014) mentioned “There were different strategic announcements to
transform Fiat from a car company to a global player. And this is a very good position
to face the competition in today’s very difficult market”. He continued saying that “Fiat
shifted towards a global strategy for two reasons. First is the market reasons, is the
possibility to recover some local negative outlook or to compensate some potential
negative business with the presence in wide market around the world, for example we
are having strong position in Brazil and Russia to recover negative brand in European
market, especially in Italy given the unstable political and economic situation. Second is
the importance of the global approach, Fiat had made few attempts to enter the
American market through alliances, which enables a wider product extension just to
make an example in US the sedan body style is very popular where in Europe hatchback
is more in line with customer expectations.”
Furthermore, this strategy innovation expanded Fiat orientations toward multi-brand,
and multi-market organization, for example Fiat portfolio includes Ferrari, Alfa Romeo,
Meserati, Abarth (Arruda et al., 2012, p. 4; Ciferri, 2001; Consalvo, 2014).
Fiat traditional business model resulted in creating a gap between the organization
performance on the technological level and the organization performance on the
managerial and customer orientation levels (Patriotta, 2004, p. 7). According to
Marchionne (2008, p. 47) said that “the focus on engineering gave Fiat great
advantages in developing cars and engines, and to be leaders in diesel for instances…
Project Initiation
•Introduction
•Research Methodology
Project Planning
•Literature Review
•Research Design
Project Execution
•Case Study Background
•Case Study Analysis
Project Close-out
•Discussion
•Conclusion
36
(however) the focus on the engineering aspects leaded to an inward looking (..) the
leader’s job is to get the organization focused on the market and competition”.
Consalvo (2014) mentioned “(Since) the automotive market is very crowdy market the
critical aspect is not the technology, critical aspect is not the product line-up, the
critical aspect is this scarcity of customer, to be able in having this direct contact with
our customer to safeguard the future of our brands to create a stable link our
community all around the world.”
Therefore, Fiat traditional business model was not aligned and efficient to support its
new strategic perspectives; thereby it needed reconfigurations and adjustments in order
to improve Fiat position within industry as a global player, and to be aligned with the
internationalization perspective developed during the strategy innovation process. This
also was associated with changes in the organization culture and decision making
process. Consalvo (2014) argued “There is a necessity to take decisions let’s say
through a structured process but also in a very flexible way (…..) most important
change of the company, toward global culture that is not linked to the international
experience but is really a different approach, because today we are looking at the world
not like past. We are really developing global product, and we are considering the
world as an important market splitting very different necessities, splitting very different
local needs”.
3.8.2 Fiat Traditional Business Model
3.8.2.1 Hurdle Rate
Since Fiat was operating in the same market segments and the same industry. Therefore,
the hurdle rate did not change, but the risk adjusted hurdle rate might have witnessed
some changes, to suit the industry turbulence and new projects; however these changes
were restricted by the cost structure of Fiat and the shareholder expectations.
Consalva (2014) specified that “In general speaking, we have to safeguard our cost-
structure while thinking globally in terms of strategic vision for the future and acting in
a certain ways on the local bases. It is necessary to increase the margin to improve the
profitability of the company.”
3.8.3 Fiat Existed Business Model
3.8.3.1 Technology and Partners' Network
The technology development focused on incremental innovation, and by internal
competencies. The value creation was shaped by the Fordist paradigm that can be
summarised in two main themes. First, Fiat adopted the integrated factory orientation
that requires centralization and controls over the entire production process (Bonazzi &
Antonelli, 2003, p. 582). Second, vertical integration with suppliers through short term
relationships with suppliers limited to for given tasks limited to manufacturing
execution (Manna, 2008, p. 75).
37
3.8.3.2 Customers Value Network
Fiat addressed its existing customer segment and non-consumers, by re-launching its
existing brands and the acquisitions for new brands. However, customers were out of
the value creation process and were considered as end users. For example, Fiat invested
in technology to re-launch of a Stilo, one of car models under Fiat brands. The re-launch
was to upgrade Stilo from a small sized car into a medium size car; however, sales did
not meet Fiat expectations as the new Stile missed the customer expectations (Palmen,
2007). According to The Economist (2002), Stilo failed as “Consumers found it chock-
full of fancy electronics they did not want, and thus overpriced”, however Fiat
responded to customers’ demands lately by producing Stilo in a basic version with a
cheaper price, and this made Fiat to realise the importance of exploring customers
willingness to pay regarding some technological innovations (Consalvo, 2014)
Furthermore, Fiat relationships with dealers were built on a bonus based on volume
scheme. The bonus scheme achieved higher growth in sales; however, it raised conflicts
between Fiat distributors (Camuffo and Volpato, 1998, p. 53).
3.8.4 Fiat Post the Innovating Existing Business Model Approach
Marchionne had introduced a set of radical changes to Fiat, some of these changes were
directly connected to innovating the existed business model for Fiat, he focused on Fiat
core business which is the small car making, redefined the suppliers and partnership
strategy, and created long term relationships with customers through different channels
(Ciravegna & Maielli, 2011, p. 81). Therefore, business model innovation dimensions
witnessed significant changes compared to the existed business model as follows,
3.8.4.1 Technology and Partners' Network
a) Value network through supplier partnership
The business model was shifted toward modular factory to divide manufacturing
activities into core and non-core activities (Bonazzi & Antonelli, 2003, p. 582). Fiat BM
witnessed a shift toward the long term oriented partnerships with the key suppliers, as
an alternative for the vertical integration, in order to develop together new investments
in certain assets, enhance a mutual trust, decrease costs, and promote higher levels of
innovation (Manna, 2008, p. 75).
Fiat designed a global sourcing network strategy. This strategy had two pillars
The re-evaluation of the existed suppliers based on quality, efficiency and cost
effectiveness (Manna, 2008, p. 76). Fiat divided them according into two tiers; the
first tier involves local and international suppliers, who are involved in a long term
relationship, technical integration and engaged in the designing and manufacturing
phases. These first tier suppliers co-ordinates and receive supplies from second tier
suppliers who considered as external sub-suppliers (Camuffo & Volpato, 2002, p. 5;
Zirpoli & Caputo, 2002, p. 1400).
Consalvo (2014) discussed that “The relationship with key suppliers is obviously a key
factor for a car maker. Some suppliers are bigger than OEM, if you are talking about
38
Bosch, Continental you know we are talking about giants that are managing the
business in a very different technological field, It is important that to have direct
connection with this premier league suppliers (…..) these relationships is important not
only in terms of economic aspect but also relevant in terms of performance for
customers.”
The international perspective of suppliers, Fiat formed new relationships with
suppliers in different countries to lower the cost of production (Camuffo & Volpato,
2002, p. 17). Moreover, Fiat established new plants such that around 180 plants
located across different countries. The aim of these plants is to integrate their
production process and relationships with the different suppliers in order to reduce
the production costs of the new products, for example Fiat used 6 of its international
plants to produce Fiat Palio which is known as the world car project.
Some of these new relationships with suppliers were based on long term partnerships
and strategic alliances, for example Consalvo (2014) said “Fiat has strategic
partnership with Bosch and with Magneti Marelli which is our internal strategic
supplier for powertrain field, while strategic alliance with Samsung in the electronic
field.”
However, the main challenges of this global strategy represented in the supplier
selection to have the best combination of cost, quality and service worldwide, a
formulation of standardized procedure in production in the different plan, and finally to
achieve an alignment with them (Camuffo & Volpato, 2002, p. 26). Therefore, Fiat
established two different departments to manage the new perspective of the supplier
network which are the global central department which is the base of the purchasing
decision making, and the other is central purchasing units which are located in different
countries (Camuffo & Volpato, 2002, p. 14).
“It is important to have common vision of the future and global strategic alignment with
key suppliers, it is important to know the exact future scenarios in terms of technology
evolutions (within their specialized domains) (…...) basically car is no more mechanical
object, it is becoming mechatronics vehicle (…) so it needs a wide range of suppliers” (Consalvo, 2014)
b) Value network through coopetition
Fiat plans for internationalism were not only limited to establishing new plans in
different countries, but also expanding its international relationship with competitors on
the basis of mutual benefits and cooperation.
Marchionne (cited in Bunkley, 2011) mentioned that “the changes reflect the
multicultural geographically diverse nature of our businesses and would help to make
the combined companies an efficient, multinational competitor in a global automotive
marketplace”. These relationships based on alliances and due to cost cutting approach
in Fiat strategy, these alliances did not involve cash, instead were based on the
formulation of joint ventures with partners for either manufacturing or marketing or
both as shown below in table (7).
39
Partner/country/
year Purpose Status
General Motors,
Latin America, in
2000
The two companies formed a new parent
company, this alliance had 3 main objectives:
Better results due to the impact of economics
of scale of purchasing, sharing major
manufacturing components, and common
development of components, and platforms.
Terminated in
2005, after wide
range of
disputes, and
fail in achieving
cost savings.
Tata Motors/
India, in 2007
First, sharing a manufacturing plant, to
develop their models, component design and
manufacturing, specifically for the engines
and transmissions for both the Indian and
export markets. In 5 years, this joint venture
produced around 190,000 cars and 337,000
powertrains. Second, Marketing agreement to
share Tata distribution channels in India to
sell Fiat brands
Manufacturing
is in progress,
while the
marketing
agreement
is terminated
Chery,
China, in 2007
The aim of the alliance primarily to produce
175,000 vehicles for both companies per year
beginning in 2009 and introducing Alfa
Romeo to the Chinese market While fiat will
provide Chery with 100,000 motors and
transmissions a year.
Was delayed to
undefined time
in 2009, due to
market
conditions and
financial crisis.
Chrysler/
USA, in 2007
The alliance was the essential element of
Chrysler recovery plan to overcome threats of
bankruptcy, while it gave Fiat multiple
benefits such as the availability of selling
technologies, the access to markets with great
potential such that Fiat - Chrysler forms the
biggest market share of the Brazilian market
moreover it allows launching Alfa Romeo
and Fiat 500 brands in US market and
increase Fiat distribution channels in key
growth markets.
In progress, the
stock increased
to 53.5%, there
is an ongoing
discussion for
potential
acquisition in
future.
Guangzhou
Automobile
Group Co (GAC)/
China, in 2010
R&D, manufacturing, sales, and after-sales
service of vehicle products, engines, and parts
& components. GAC-Fiat runs a factory that
can roll out 140,000 vehicles a year. It plans
to construct a new one in Guangzhou that will
initially have an annual production capacity
of 100,000 Jeeps a year
In progress
Mazda Motor
Corp/
Japan, in 2012
To produce a car for Fiat's Alfa Romeo brand
and a roadster at Mazda's plant in Hiroshima.
Each manufacturer will use its own engine
and styling, production begins in 2015.
In progress
Multiple sources: (BBC News, 2013; Caputo, 2012; Gac Fiat, 2013; Germano, 2012, p.
78; Mohile, 2013; Reed, 2012; The Economist, 2002; Wong, 2007; Zirpoli & Caputo,
2002, p. 1400)
Table 7: Fiat Joint Ventures
40
Fiat had a process of learning and experimenting during innovating its existing business
model, for example they learned from their mistakes in their alliance with General
motors(GM) brand Opel, and they avoided them in their recent alliance with Chrysler.
Consalvo (2014) demonstrated as
“With GM we had a negative aspect of critical overlapping in the market in terms of
overlapping between the models Fiat Punto and Opel Corsa, these cars were similar
characteristics and price level. They were sharing a lot of components in the same
platform but it was not a good idea or right way to cover the market and today we
are more complementary relationship with Chrysler because we are able to sum up
a very different product line-up.”
“It was very difficult to start with some strategic move regarding American market
with GM. Both Fiat and Opel were local players in Europe. While with Chrysler we
were able to face the competition together all over the world.”
“Fiat and Opel had a difficulty in creating a sort of common technical shell (…..)
We were not a common team, but in a certain way we were 2 different internal
competitors when we have to start with a development of a new car. But the
situation with Chrysler is opposite that we are in competition in a friendly way, by
sharing our knowledge, sharing our best practices and we are conscious about the
fact that we have to create a common team to speed up the process and to converge
in a very quick way putting together the local necessities to creating technical
global shell.”
3.8.4.2 Customers Value Network
The customer value network was the main one of the critical elements to innovate the
existing business model. Fiat worked on building a brand loyalty and expanding its
brand recognition in the market We argue that Fiat planned to build new relationships
with customers by collecting more data on their needs, and engaging them in the
decision making process especially during production phases as follows:
“What is important is to have clear vision and a clear mission for each brand. And
brand differentiation is the key aspect because basically it also means a clear way to
have a good relationship with our customers” (Consalvo, 2014)
A. Distribution Channels
Fiat applied wide modifications in the distribution channels to make customer
satisfaction as a key variable, such that Fiat changed its incentive mechanism with
dealers from volumes and market share into the customer satisfaction index. (Camuffo
& Volpato, 1998, p. 52). Furthermore, Fiat and dealers designed customer retention
program in cooperation with IBM. The program was based a sophisticated software to
analyze the results of massive customer surveys conducted by Fiat and partners
specialized in purchasing behavior. The survey was conducted to understand customer
needs and get more information on how often they replace their vehicles. Lux,
Customer Database & Business Intelligence Manager at IBM discussed that the
program was based on predictive models that can describe the customers with a set of
41
variables such as age, gender, geography, financial information, after-sales experience
and purchasing history. She explained according to the survey findings “for example,
we can tell the dealers: These are the 100 people in this geographical area who are very
likely to buy a new car, and this set of 100 people is somewhat less likely to buy” (IBM,
2011, p. 2). This program supplied Fiat and dealers with sufficient information to design
their new marketing campaigns, those new campaigns succeed in increasing customers
brand loyalty and sales. Moreover it improved the customer retention by 6%, and Fiat
also witnessed an increase in customer response rate by 20% to these campaigns (IBM,
2011, p. 3; Zoratti & Gallagher, 2012, p. 52)
Consalvo (2014) summarized that “we have a lot of additional tools to anticipate some
trend in the market and for instance we are working with external partner to create
some observation point in some parts of the society to anticipate the evolution of the
society, (….) this is very important aspect because we have to know what the customer
thinking today and to know what our brands can do for the evolution of the evolution
and for the evolution of the feeling of the customer.”
B. Direct Relationships with Customers
Consalvo (2014) elaborated that “to develop a new car today we are adopting a
common method Fiat and Chrysler in Europe and in US, that is called customer car
profile process, (….) this creates a diverse link between the subjective opinion of the
customer and the objective analysis to figuring the engineering way to explain some
performance of the vehicle. (….) It acts as a translator of what the customer wants in
what an engineer has to develop to ensure the customer expectations.”
Additionally, Fiat realized that the web 2.0 and digital transformation can used
efficiently to develop a new type of direct relationships with customer. “Today, In Fiat
web is becoming a gut feeling of the company. It is not possible to transform directly the
gut feeling in numbers, product initiatives. (…..) We are using web interaction for some
specific marketing research, we know that it is not so precise in terms of feedbacks but
it is very quick. So basically we can go for further interactions to understand better the
feeling of the market, the ideal profile of customers, the different expectations in terms
of features, and the effects of price war on customers”. (Consalvo, 2014)
Fiat has designed multiple online initiatives addressing its customers in different
markets such as Fiat 500 in Italy and Fiat Mio in Brazil. The main objective of these
initiatives is encouraging customers to submit their ideas that define the main features
of the new car. Moreover, such initiatives provided Fiat with customer data to define
their characteristics, preferences, needs, their expected price and technology level for
new cars. Abel Reis, president and chief operating officer of Fiat's digital agency
mentioned that, “in his opinion, an online initiative is a laboratory to test the concepts
and designs in the market before the next step of product innovation” (cited in
Cameron, 2009, p. 28).
1. Fiat 500 wants you Campaign
Fiat 500 one of the popular vehicles from Fiat, was initially produced in 1936. Fiat in
2006 planned to re-launch this brand in cooperation with customers themselves as a
competence asset in the production phase (Raffaele & Alguezaui, 2012, p. 3). Fiat
created a website with the campaign name, and provided the customers with
42
information on the technology and price, and asked them to participate by sharing their
ideas. Fiat received around 170,000 ideas from different online participants (Weiwei,
2012, p. 88). Consalvo (2014) mentioned said “In particular regarding Fiat 500, it was
clear that such an emotional product is very direct way to create enthusiasm to our
community and at same time it was a good way to select some important topic
regarding car concept, so what I’m saying is that we are not able to transform the
indication from web in a design guideline but sure we can take in to account some
suggestions from web to avoid some mistakes which are very common in car industry”.
2. My Fiat campaign (Fiat Mio)
In 2009, Fiat introduced a campaign to design the concept car or Fiat Mio, the world
first car produced through crowdsourcing. Fiat campaign was built on one question how
should be the features of a car that can be yours while still useful others. On one side
customers submit their ideas online to design a new car from scratch. On the other hand,
Fiat technical team (i.e. engineers and designers) worked on choosing and connecting
people’s ideas to be implemented (Cameron, 2009, p. 28; Richard & Burnap, 2012, p.
7).
The campaign received 11,000 ideas by a registered community of almost 17,000
members from 160 countries (Ciravegna & Maielli, 2011, p. 81). Ciaco Fiat marketing
director in Brazil commented on Fiat online initiatives saying, this campaign provided
an access to potential customers ideas. If these ideas are good enough, they will be an
inspiration for future designs and car features not only for Mio but for other brands as
well. (Cited in Cameron, 2009, p. 28)
3.8.5 Summary
Table (8) compare between the existed business model and the innovated business
model designed for the Nano.
Typology
dimensions Fiat existed business model Fiat innovated business model
Hurdle Rate It was not changed, however risk adjusted hurdle rate might have
witnessed some changes.
Technology
and partners
value network
Integrated factory orientation,
internal development.
Modular factory orientation,
external development was
introduced
Vertical integration and limited
role for suppliers
Building long term relationships
with key suppliers to expand
their role to innovators.
Focus on acquisitions Focus on alliances
Local manufacturing approach Global sourcing approach
Customers
value network
Customers are end users, low
emphasize on market needs.
Customers are innovators, and
decision makers. High emphasis
on market needs.
Source: Developed by Authors
Table 8: Fiat, Existed Business Model vs Innovated Business Model
43
3.9 Case Study (2): Tata Motors
3.9.1 Nano Strategy
According to Ratan Tata (cited in Layak, 2009, p. 61; Rowley et al., 2008, p. 30),
“Nano is defining new rules for the game in the automotive industry, it is the cheapest
car in the world and it will change how people travel not only in India but also
internationally”. Moreover, Bhat (2013) demonstrated that “when Mr. Ratan Tata came
up with the idea that, let us have this turnover for these 2 segments; 2-wheeler segment
market and 4-wheeler segment market at the affordable rates, so that a common man of
regular class man he can buy. The car which is affordable, at the same price of 2-
wheeler, but more comfort in terms of the car. So this is how the idea of Nano was
generated. The car which is common man car”.
On the Nano portfolio level, Tata Motors is addressing this new segment aggressively
by further Nano models, such as Nano 12 which is a replication of Nano car with engine
re-configurations; in addition Tata Motors is working on producing Nano diesel
(Willimas, 2013). Tata Motors is also developing a new model of Nano named Tata
Pixel zero fuel, which address the American and European market Pixel has similar
characteristics to Nano of good performance with low price, however with more
features to match the European market demand and requirements such as safety (Tata
Pixel, 2013), moreover Tata Motors also has future plans to produce an electric version
for Nano.
Madiwale (2013) mentioned “future plans of Nano, is producing a new version which
will have an engine with fuel options like diesel, the plan to launch it in other Asian
countries”, while Bhat (2013) mentioned “Tata is planning to push Tata Nano globally
especially for the European and Asian markets, and also planning for CNG version”.
3.9.2 Nano Business Model Dimensions
Tata Motors applied an industry business model innovation by a horizontal move within
the industry to a new market through a new strategic focus on a low cost. According to
Madiwale (2013) “Nano is the most cost effective vehicles among all passenger cars
made by Tata”. Consequently this required new business model elements that are
suitable for the new segment to suit its needs, especially which since the existed
business model was not able to support such market expansion and the objective of
producing the world cheapest car. Therefore, the new business model features can be
explained through the business model innovation typology as following:
3.9.2.1 Hurdle Rate
Tata Nano required a new hurdle rate that meets its production need and expected level
of profit. This new hurdle rate was not restricted by shareholders and stockholders view.
It was based on the owner's vision to produce the car for the new segment; therefore the
market and financial risk were higher than the Tata traditional risks (Rowley et al.,
2008, p. 30; Tripathy et al., 2012, p. 53). The new hurdle rate was connected to the new
business model profit formula, sales in high volumes was considered as a tool to
guarantee profits, the cost structure decreased the cost elements and gross margins to
44
minimum levels, even lower than the defined standard level (Johnson et al., 2008, p.
50).
Bhat (2013) elaborated “there were various departments or the various people who
worked on Nano at various levels and points to see how the cost can be minimized for
the Nano. It is not only for the material cost from engineering side but also from the
management side or from the service, sales. Even the transportation of the plant with a
dealership, how that can be made within a profitable percentage. Tata Nano was
restructuring its cost structure independently not only from engineering side but also
from non-engineering backgrounds, taking into consideration the profit margin”
3.9.2.2 Technology and Suppliers Value Network
Tata Motors designed the new business model to enable radical innovation and
discovery driven plans, Nano production focused on the cost effectiveness basis and
therefore plans were opting continuous changes. The new business involved the open
innovation perspectives, such that Tata Motors engaged suppliers through long term
collaboration and partnerships reach new low cost production solutions. Therefore, Tata
Motors invested in external innovation heavily, such that 85% of the Nano’s
components were outsourced and use nearly 60% fewer vendors than normal
production, mostly from local suppliers (Johnson et al., 2008, p. 55).
Ravi Kant, Tata Motors chief executive (cited in Kripalani, 2008) said “Tata Motors
engaged different experts in examining the car during production to evaluate the
production process and provide Tata Motors with new ideas on how to reduce the cost
further”
Madiwale (2013) mentioned, “Tata received many cost effective proposals which were
studied and finally chosen. The manufacturing processes were simplified to reduce cost.
Component count was reduced where ever possible, and the prototype vehicles were
made and tested thoroughly before putting in market”
The relationship with suppliers builds on trust and open communication. Tata Motors
suppliers’ relationships to produce Nano can be described as function driven
relationships, focus on R&D, and based on trial and error, knowledge sharing
approaches to reach the goal of achieving least cost. Moreover, Tata Motors built new
factories in collaboration with key local suppliers to centralize Nano components
production at one location, learning from Toyota trial to produce a low budget car was
not successful due to the high production costs as its approach followed a global
knowledge creation with multi-location design and manufacturing.
Suppliers were interested to be involved in Nano production for multiple reasons other
than profits, they considered Nano a first step to develop new technology for a new
market with a clear goal of executing, learn and change, as well as expanding their
propositions in the Indian market (Snyder, 2008; Wells, 2010, p. 447). Bhat (2013)
mentioned that “there were many new components which was only built for Nano at that
time”. The list of Tata Nano suppliers is depicted in detail in Appendix III.
Kozyra CEO of Continental (cited in Snyder, 2008), one of Nano suppliers mentioned
that “we expect long-term benefits from the involvement in the Nano because the owners
45
of low cost cars usually want more comfort and sophistication from their second cars;
moreover the expected profit for suppliers is at the minimum. Behr's Carter, one of
Nano parts suppliers (cited in Snyder, 2008) said, “None of the suppliers expect to make
a big profit from the Nano.”
Bhat (2013) mentioned that “From Nano side, there was very good efforts being exerted
for co-operation. There was a very good alignment with suppliers and the colleagues
who worked for the Tata Nano. So that whatever Nano team think that should be
reliable and the suppliers should be able to produce it at the end. So suppliers’
involvement was quite a good.”
3.9.2.3 Customer Value Network
Nano changed the automotive market by targeting neglected customer in the industry
and providing them with new price schemes, Tata Nano price can be translated into a 65
percent increase in the number of Indian families that can afford a car (Govindarajan &
Trimble, 2012, p. 10; Luft, 2009). Therefore, Nano witnessed high sales since launching
in 2009 as shown in table (9).
Financial Year 2009 2010 2011
Sales (Units) 30000 70432 74527
Source: Tata Nano (2013) Table 9: Tata Nano Sales
However, the new segment includes first time users for cars, customers who were able
to afford only two-wheeler owners, and non-consumers for cars in rural areas, which
accounts to almost 60 million users (Hagel & Brown, 2008; Kripalani, 2008; Manjeet,
2008). This new segment should be required new approaches to interact with their
customer, which is completely different to the traditional way of sales in Tata Motors:
a) Convenient distribution channels:
Tata Motors found that its traditional way of selling cars to customer, affected
negatively to the sales of Nano; Since Tata used the existed showrooms which are
usually as a huge size such as 4000 sq. ft., while the target segment felt shy to enter
such big showroom to buy the cheapest car. Consequently, Tata realized that
distribution channels were a challenge an affected sales negatively. Therefore, in 2010,
Tata Motors launched the small F-class showrooms for a size of 500 sq. ft., to display
one Nano car to customers (Dafes, 2011). In addition Tata Motors launched special
access points for the customers in the rural areas and hinterlands to give the opportunity
to experience and test the car. Tata Motors also have expanded its distribution channels
with new dealers in the rural areas. Furthermore, Tata Motors designed a delivery
program for the Nano to customers' locations in return for an extra fee (Rao &
Naikwadi, 2009, p. 21).
Furthermore, Tata Motors deigned a radical distribution plan for Nano, by forming a
new network of assembly plants that included assembly plants owned by Tata Motors
and other plants technically qualified. The main aim of these networks is to provide
these assembly plants with the modular components of the car in kits, to install them,
hand the car directly to customers at their designated pickup location, as well as to
provide after sales services (Bekmezci, 2013, p. 311; Johnson et al., 2008, p. 7). Ratan
46
Tata (cited in Hagel & Brown, 2008) mentioned “Tata can train the distributors on the
assembly operation of its core components, to assure their quality assurance, so Nano
can have satellite centers through distributors in the different locations.”
b) Financing schemes
Since the target segment is customers with a low income, accordingly Tata Motors
planned to strengthen its relationship with those customers by supporting their risk
profile. Tata Motors did this though multiple ways including for example, a
collaborated with five insurance providers to co-design a new insurance scheme
relevant to Nano. Furthermore, Tata Motors did a number of agreements with a total of
fifteen financial institutions (i.e. Banks and Non-Banking Financial Companies) to
provide Nano customers with loans, so that loans can extend to 85% of the car cost.
Some of the agreements with banks decreased the conditions on annual income for
employees from 100,000 to 95,000 R.S (Rao & Naikwadi, 2009, p. 20; Tripathy et al.,
2012, p. 59).
3.9.3 Summary
Table (10) compares between the existed business model and the new business model
designed for the Nano.
Typology
dimensions
Tata Business model
(Existed BM)
Tata Nano BM
(Disruptive BM)
Hurdle Rate The existed rate focused on
shareholder value maximization
A new rate was required, more
flexible as the market is new and
driven by preserving the
interests of customers and
employees
Technology
and partners’
value network
Platform planning and
incremental innovation
Discovery driven planning and
radical innovation
Backward and forward vertical
integration in the value chain.
Decentralized in manufacturing
and assembly plants.
Internal Innovation
Suppliers as Innovators (i.e.,
patents on components
inventions)
Specification driven supplier
relationships
Function driven supplier
relationships based on long term
and high volume contracts
Customers
value network
Customer segment targets those
who afford to buy cars in the
automotive market
Customer segment targets those
who afford to buy only two and
three wheel vehicles (e.g.
Scooters)
Dealers role limited to
distributing the vehicles and
sales.
Dealers received Nano core
components in kits to be
assembled by them.
Huge and luxury showrooms. Small showrooms and of access
points.
Source: Developed by Authors
Table 10: Tata Motors, Existed Business Model vs New Business Model
47
Chapter 7 – DISCUSSION
This chapter begins with drawing a contrast between the findings of the two case
studies, and a contrast between their findings and the literature propositions. The
chapter proceeds by introducing the proposed framework and checklist on business
model innovation.
7.1 Case Comparisons
From the analysis of Tata Motors and Fiat business models, we were able to make a
contrast to conceptualize the differences and similarities between the two business
model innovation approaches.
7.1.1 Similarities
On the other hand, the similarities between the two business models can be explained by
two main features; the application of open innovation and the focus on customers as the
main priority as follows:
7.1.1.1 Open Innovation
Both organizations invested in open innovation as an essential ingredient for business
model innovation. It allows them to expand their organizational boundary externally
through partnerships with suppliers and R&D centres, in order to save production cost
and time; furthermore this develops new solutions for production. Both Fiat and Tata
Motors used platform and discovery driven plans as alternatives for the vertical
integration. However, Fiat is engaged in joint ventures with competitors as well to
develop further its products and market positions in the different markets as discussed
earlier in table (7).
7.1.1.2 Customers are the Priority
Despite, Tata Motors and Fiat chose different approaches for business model
innovation; their decision making was driven by customer needs. For example Tata
Motors realized the need of the customers at the bottom of the pyramid to low cost cars;
moreover Tata Motors even provided customers with convenient financial schemes to
support their purchasing positions to buy Nano. On the other hand, Fiat realized the
importance to engage customers in designing the new products. For example, Fiat Mio
and Fiat 500 campaigns encouraged customers to share ideas and expectations, therefore
these campaigns enabled Fiat to improve its value propositions, in order to make it
perfectly suit the customer requirements, which in turn helped them to attract new
customers and to increase the brand loyalty of the existing ones.
Project Initiation
•Introduction
•Research Methodology
Project Planning
•Literature Review
•Research Design
Project Execution
•Case Study Background
•Case Study Analysis
Project Close-out
•Discussion
•Conclusion
48
7.1.1.3 Distribution Channel Importance
Tata motors and Fiat modified their relations with dealers; they developed new
relationships based on trust and knowledge. Fiat shifted their relationships from volume
and sales base into building mutual knowledge on customer requirements and
improving the level of customer service. Tata realized that the importance of convenient
distribution channels to the new customer segment, accordingly they established new
small showroom, access points, and also Tata Motors provided Nano distributors with
Nano components in kits to be assembled at their respective locations.
7.1.2 Differences
The differences between the two business models can be explained through the
difference in the selected form of business model innovation, and the differences in the
hurdle rate and strategy as follows:
7.1.2.1 The Forms of Business Model Innovation
It is evident from case study that Fiat introduced the enterprise business innovation that
is focused on restructuring the organization structure and the core logic of the business
model. Fiat applied business model innovation through innovating the existing business
model approach; it raises the organization’s attention towards increasing its market
share in the different countries through two ways. First, Fiat builds different strategies
to enhance the customer relationships and to engage customers in the product
development process such as Fiat Mio and Fiat 500 campaigns. Second, Fiat expands
the boundary of the organization through global alliances based on coopetition and
mutual benefits with the partners. In contrast, Tata motors introduced an industry
business model innovation; it focused on implementing a horizontal move to serve a
new customer segment within the automotive industry. The new customer segment
represents the bottom of the pyramid, whose need for cars were neglected for a long
time. Tata motors applied business model innovation through multiple business model
approach, such that the new business model seeks to change the industry structure,
Since Nano does not only have a competition with the low cost cars, but also with the
two and three wheel vehicles.
7.1.2.2 Cost Structures and Hurdle rate
Despite the two organizations focused on the cost minimizing approach and
decentralized manufacturing. Fiat invests in global sourcing and forming alliances
internationally with competitors, whereas Tata motors invested in developing
relationships with local suppliers within India only. This controversial approach in the
two business model activities can be explained by the different perspectives of their
strategy.
However, Fiat used the existing cost structures and revenue models, accompanied with
the same risk rate for the new product, thereby Fiat used the existing hurdle rate as a
benchmark within the decision making process. In contrast, Tata motors needed to
define a new cost structures and revenue models for Nano, since Nano focused on new
customer segment which possess a higher risk rate for Tata motors, therefore Tata
49
Motors designed a new hurdle rate fine-tuned to handle Tata Nano circumstances in the
decision making process.
7.2 Literature Review Comparison with the Case Study Findings
In chapter two, the authors had summarized the literature review discussions on
business model innovation approaches in two initial propositions, these propositions
gives an initial overview of the relationship between the dimensions of the business
model innovation typology. However, the case study findings have contradicted some
elements of these initial propositions; we have elaborated the similarities and
differences between them as follows:
7.2.1 Similarities
Both literature review and case study findings emphasized that the hurdle rate
dimension differs according to the business model innovation approach. Such that, the
innovating existing business model approach is connected to the existing cost structures
and hurdle rate, while the multiple business model approach face higher risk in the
market and may require a separate cost structure and a new hurdle rate as benchmark for
the decision making process. Moreover, both of them explained that the business model
innovation shift the organizations logic towards customer orientation, such that
innovating existing business model engage customers in the decision making process,
while multiple business model approach satisfies the needs of the new segment of
customers.
7.2.2 Differences
Literature review propositions discussed that the innovating existing business model
approach strives for sustaining innovation, and it is limited to incremental technology
innovation and expanding relationships with heterogeneous partners (e.g. Suppliers, and
distributors), while the multiple business model approach follows disruptive innovation
that is highly correlated with radical innovation and expanding relationships with
homogeneous partners (e.g. Competitors and R&D partners). However, the findings of
the case studies showed a discrepancy with some elements of these propositions in
terms of the types of technology innovation and in the type of partners in value network.
7.2.2.1 Technology Innovation
On one side, the relationship between disruptive innovation and the radical technology
innovation is self-explanatory, together they enable organizations to create new
opportunities in the markets, and expand the organization’s business models portfolio.
On the other side, there might raise confusion between sustaining innovation and radical
technological innovation which leads to the assumption that they have a contradictory
relationship (Charitou & Markides, 2003, p. 58). However, radical technology
innovation can support sustaining innovation to improve the existing value positions, by
improving the existing capabilities of organizations on exploiting their resources.
Radical technology innovation compared to incremental innovation as an ingredient of
business model innovation, provides organizations with higher potentials to expand
their markets through a substantial cannibalization to their existing business (Aboulnasr
50
et al., 2008, p. 96; Forsman, 2009, p. 505; Markides, 1997, p. 33). Therefore, radical
technology innovation is linked to business model innovation in both approaches.
However, established organization may face problems while developing radical
innovation exclusively through their internal capabilities, such as reluctance for further
technology investment to the existing one due to limited budget and time, and the need
for a fundamental shift in the existing capabilities and structures (Chandy & Tellis,
2000, p. 2; Markides, 1997, p. 33). Radical innovation implies changing the status quo
of organizations (Stringer, 2000, p. 71). Therefore, the innovating existing business
model approach develops radical technology innovation in established organizations
through expanding the existing capabilities of organizations through value network.
7.2.2.2 Value Network
The literature review propositions summarized that the value network for the innovating
existing business model approach is limited to suppliers as a source of innovation,
however the general trend of coopetition on the horizontal level between firms allows
for long term partnerships and joint ventures (Depeyre & Dumez, 2010, p. 124).
Therefore, organizations may expand their boundaries to improve their technology
through partnerships with homogenous partners to release part of the existing resources
for new product development, or to develop radical innovation for common new
products (Bengtsson, 2010, p. 25). Fiat as an example revised its relationships with
suppliers into tiers based system, developed alliances based on joint ventures with
competitors in the industry to expand its position in other markets and develop new
technology. Moreover, Fiat created new relationships with customers through crowd
sourcing to develop radical innovation in the new products such as Fiat Mio.
Furthermore, the value network in multiple business model approach should not be
restricted as well to a certain type of partners. Since the new business model dimensions
may contradict completely to the dimensions of the existing business model. Therefore,
organizations may require building new relationships for the new business model value
chain. For example Tata motors built new relationships with distributors and
entrepreneurs to distribute Tata Nano with the least cost using kits to customers at rural
areas.
7.3 Proposed Framework
Based on the previous discussion and since there are few previous studies in literatures
differentiated between the two approaches of business model innovation, the authors
have developed a new theory to explain the dimensions that may influence the decision
making process in the organizations. Moreover, this new theory is based on the business
model typology proposed by Koen et al. (2011). The authors developed further the
typology dimensions and they used a dual case study approach to elaborate and update
its assumptions using the empirical data. Furthermore, the authors used Whetten’s
(1989) guidelines, which highlight the essential elements required for a new theory
development. Figure (9) depicts that ‘Business model innovation approaches
framework’. The theory was constructed in a horizontal sequence and its consequent
relationships are represented by arrows. Moreover, a vertical sequence is also used to
indicate the external drives.
51
Fig
ure
9: B
usi
nes
s M
od
el In
no
vati
on
P
rop
ose
d F
ram
ewo
rk
Sourc
e: D
evel
oped
By
Auth
ors
52
The figure (9) shows starting from the left, that the decision making on business model
innovation is initiated by the top management. Top management investigates the impact
of business environment changes on their organization, scans the current resources and
capabilities, and evaluates the business model innovation dimensions in order to choose
between two scenarios as follows:
In scenario one, top management found that the current capabilities can support a move
within the same industry or to different industry. This implies the development of new
value positions or new product development that address a new customer segment
besides the existing segment. The main motives of serving these new customers are
either replying to the threats imposed by new market entrants, usually low cost entrants,
or to attract non consumers who are the neglected customers for long-time in the
industry. Since the risk is higher for the organizations in this case, then they might need
to form a new cost structures and new revenue model for these new products, which
will be translated by new hurdle rate as a benchmark in the decision making process.
Moreover, the organization may focus on disruptive innovation based on radical
technology development and expanding the organization boundaries with R&D centres,
suppliers, distributors as knowledge making partners and innovators. Therefore,
organizations in this case require a separate new business model which usually may
contradict the existed business model in terms of value creation and capture logic.
Scenario two, the top management might realize a gap between the organization and
industry performance. Therefore, the decision may be driven by an enterprise or revenue
innovation. In this case, the organization continues addressing the same existing
customer segment, however through an improved value proposition and new approaches
for product development. The organization usually may seek to increase their market
share in their industry or attracting the non-customers. Moreover, organizations in this
case may use the existing hurdle rate as a benchmark for their decisions however
reconfigurations in the cost structure and revenue might be applied, and may focus on
sustaining innovation approach based on the different technology innovation either
radical or incremental. The organization boundary usually will expand through new
alliances and partnerships with suppliers, R&D and competitors to expand their market
reach or develop new technology. Therefore, organizations accordingly require some
reconfigurations and innovation in their existing business model, to minimize the initial
identified performance gap.
However, the figure (9) also shows that business model innovation is a continuous
dynamic process. Organizations should create a feedback loop that reveals the
customers and competitors' responses to these new changes, in order to investigate the
consequent opportunities or threats in the industry.
7.4 Proposed Checklist
Additionally, we have designed a checklist on business model innovation as a guiding
tool for decision makers and managers. This checklist can be used to evaluate the
business model innovation dimensions using a set of connected and related polar
questions. The checklist based on the sequence of the answers provides them also will
different scenarios on the corresponding business model innovation.
53
Business model innovation Guide
This checklist facilitates the decision making process for the relevant business model
innovation that suits the organization objectives.
No. Questions Yes No
Customer Value Network
1 Do you want to improve the current offerings to the existing
customer?
2 Is your new product aiming at increasing the existing market
share?
3 Is the new product enhancing the organization relationship with
customers and encourage them to participate in the decision
making?
If you replied by YES to any of these questions (1-3), move to question 7.
Otherwise Continue
4 Do you want to address the neglected customers as a new
segment?
5 Do you want to serve a different customer segment than the
existing one?
6 Do you want to respond to the threats from a new/ low cost
entrant?
If you replied by YES to any of these questions (4-6), move to question 9.
Otherwise Continue
Technology and Partners Value Network
7 Is your product representing a breakthrough to your existing
segment?
8 Can you develop this product through a joint venture with
competitor(s)?
If you have replied as YES to any of these questions (7-8), move to no 11.
Otherwise Continue
9 Is the new product enables you to a horizontal or vertical moves
within the industry.
10 Do you need to engage a completely new type of suppliers?
If you have replied YES to any of these questions (9-10), move to question 12.
Otherwise Continue
Hurdle Rate (Profit Formula)
11 Is your existing hurdle rate as a financial benchmark enough to
support the decision making for this new product?
If you replied YES, then move to Scenario A.
If you replied NO, then move to Scenario B.
12 Is there a need for a new hurdle rate to develop this new product
If you replied YES, then move to Scenario C.
If you replied NO, then move to Scenario D.
54
Scenario A
Your new product requires an innovating BMI approach, specifically Enterprise
business model approach. You may use the existing hurdle rate, expand the value
network, engage customers in the decision making process. Enterprise business model
innovation is usually associated with team reconfiguration and change in the
organization structure and culture.
Scenario B
Your new product development needs an innovating BMI approach specifically
Revenue business model approach. You might need to expand the value network,
engage customers in the decision making process, however you might need to revisit
organization cost structure and revenue model.
Scenario C
Your new product development requires a multiple business model approach. Designing
a new business model is essential since you need a new business unit, new hurdle rate,
expansion for value network with new type of partners and creation of new customer
segments.
Scenario D
There might be an inconsistency between BMI dimensions; it is advised to revise the
alignment between the hurdle rate conditions, the new customer segment requirements
and relevant technology innovation dimension.
Source: Developed by Authors
Table 11: Business Model Innovation Proposed Checklist
The checklist has a total of twelve questions which are interrelated and follows a
sequential order. It divides these questions into three sections, where each section
represents a dimension of the three dimensions of business model innovation. The
checklist starts with the customer value network as the first step in the decision making
process, then navigates the reader across the other sections according to their replies.
However the last question navigates them to the relevant scenario of business model
innovation, to define for them the relevant business mode innovation form, approach
and its managerial implications. For example, If the respondent replied by yes into the
first three questions, it means that the organization focus on serving the existing
customer segment. Therefore the checklist navigates the respondent to technology and
partners value network section, to define the nature of the new product and required
partners, if the respondent replied by yes to any of the first two questions in this section,
it means that the organization needs to expand its existing value network with similar
suppliers or competitors. Therefore, the checklist will navigate the respondent to the last
section to assess the profit formula of this new product, if the respondent replied by yes
to the first question, it means that the organization is pre-determined to use the existing
profit formula and hurdle rate as a base to make decision. Therefore, the checklist
navigates the respondent to scenario one, which defines for the reader the enterprise and
innovating the existing business model as the relevant form and approach of business
model innovation respectively, moreover it informs the reader that in this scenario
business model innovation is usually associated with restructuring and reconfiguration
in the team and organization culture.
55
Chapter 8 – CONCLUSIONS
This chapter provides the answer to the research question, the theoretical and
managerial implication of the study. The chapter proceeds with discussing the strength
and weakness of the study, and finally the suggestions for future studies.
8.1 Answer to the Research Question
This study was based on comparative study analysis, which has allowed us to make a
contrast between the findings of the two case studies and between these empirical
findings and the initial literature review propositions. Moreover, this contrast has
allowed building new insights and knowledge relevant enough to answer the research
question that was predetermined by the authors:
Research question:
What are the dimensions of business model innovation that influence the decision
making process in organizations, in choosing between innovating their existing business
model or applying multiple business model approach?
Based on the discussion in chapter seven, the decision making process on business
model innovation approaches, is highly influenced by the three dimensions of business
model innovation. These dimensions are the hurdle rate, technology and partners value
network, and the customer value network. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that
innovating the existing business model innovation is used to improve the organization
performance in the industry and internally, while the multiple business model approach
used to disrupt the industry with new offerings or to disrupt competitors or new entrants
that threaten the organization position in the market. Moreover, the two approaches are
highly influenced by open innovation.
However, each of the proposed framework and checklist depicted in figure (9) and table
(11) respectively, showed that the decision making process starts with customer value
network. Such that organization decides on the nature of the new offering that they are
willing to introduce, as well as the customer segment that the organization is willing to
serve. The second step in the decision making process is the technology and partners
value network, where organization based on the customer value network decides on the
relevant ways to expand their value network and boundary spanning. The last step in
this decision making process is about making decisions on the hurdle rate and profit
formula.
Such that, the proposed framework and checklist showed that innovating the existing
business model approach implies improving the existing offerings, expanding the
existing customer segment and market shares, through sustaining innovation and the
Project Initiation
•Introduction
•Research Methodology
Project Planning
•Literature Review
•Research Design
Project Execution
•Case Study Background
•Case Study Analysis
Project Close-out
•Discussion
•Conclusion
56
different forms of technology innovation (i.e. incremental, architectural and radical),
while using the existing hurdle rate as a benchmark for the financial decisions for these
offerings. Furthermore, this approach can be either enterprise or revenue forms of
business model innovation, it extends the organization partners network with
homogenous partners (e.g. R&D and competitors) and heterogeneous partners (e.g.
suppliers).
However, it also shows that the multiple business model innovation approach implies
introducing new offerings, serving a new customer segment, through disruptive
innovation and radical technology innovation only. Moreover, the organization is
essential as a benchmark for these decisions. Furthermore, this approach is an industry
form of business model innovation, it extends the organization partners network with
homogenous partners (e.g. R&D) and heterogeneous partners (e.g. suppliers and
distributors)
8.2 Research Implications
This section discusses the implication of this study with regards to the theoretical and
managerial implications.
8.2.1 Theoretical Implications
This study contributes to business model, business model innovation, open innovation,
and value network literatures. First, the study investigates the relationship between
business model and strategy, and how changes in the business environment may affect
this relationship and the overall organization performance. The study shows that
business model is not only a simplified description for the organization strategic choices
but also it can be a foundation for strategy innovation on the long run. Second, the study
extensively reviewed business model innovation in the literature, and proved that it
becomes an essential element for most of organizations in the different industries, since
it overcomes the limitations of the traditional business model by presenting the dynamic
capabilities view along with the resource based view, and additionally offers high
emphasize on open innovation and value network approaches. Third, the study main
purpose is differentiating between the drivers and implications of innovating the
existing business model and multiple business model as the main approaches of
business model innovation. Moreover, the study is based on the business model
innovation dimensions proposed by Koen et al. (2011), enhanced with some
reconfigurations in the value network dimension, as it was divided into partners’ value
network and customer value network, in order to facilitate the discussion on the
consequences of the two business model innovation approaches on each of them
separately. Finally, the study provides a process based framework that stressed the
compatible forms of business model innovation, innovation and technology innovation,
as well as the relevant customer segments for each approach of business model
innovation.
8.2.2 Managerial Implications
The proposed checklist in table (11) provides a procedural roadmap and a simple tool
for the managers, to be used the selection of the best business model innovation
approach that is compatible with the organization objectives and capabilities.
57
Furthermore, we recommend this checklist for managers and decision makers, as it
provides them with the relevant business model innovation scenario according to their
replies on the checklist questions. Furthermore, the checklist scenario showed the
innovating the existing business model approach is linked to restructuring and
reconfigurations in the organizations, while the multiple business model approach is
linked to the design of new teams and separate unit. Moreover, the study showed the
following managerial implications as essential elements for approaches of business
model innovation regardless of approach;
a) Innovative Leadership: Business model innovation starts from the top
management who should understand the importance of breaking the organizational
internal status quo while exploiting the existing resources and capabilities. The
effective leaders are the ones who understand how business model and business
model innovation dimensions are positively connected to each other and are
affecting each other, they understand the importance of their role in selecting the
right the relevant business model innovation approach and drive organization in
implementing it (Giesen et al., 2009, p. 14; Svejenova et al., 2010, p. 424).
b) Trial and Error Approach: Managers should use business model innovation as a
tool to exploit their existing resources and capabilities, and there should be a
feedback loop as shown in the proposed framework in figure (9) that nurtures the
decision makers with the industry responses to their business model innovation
approach, to evaluate their previous decision effectiveness and modify their
decisions accordingly.
c) Strategic Flexibility: Managers should be aware of the importance of the strategic
flexibility, their business model innovation approaches should be high responsive to
the new circumstances in the business environment and make the best choices for
innovation which is relevant to the organization strategic objectives, moreover it is
important for organization to achieve a synergy between the organization business
model(s) and the different partners business model(s).
8.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research
This study contributes significantly to the existing literature on business model
innovation. The main aim of the study is draw links between the existing literature on
business model innovation, to differentiate between the underlined factors of choosing
between innovating the existing business model and multiple business model approach
that allows for designing a new one. Therefore, the study begun with an intensive
review of the existing literature on business model innovation to conceptualize the
topic, then a case study approach was followed to deepen the understanding of the two
business model innovation approaches.
The case study was based on secondary data, such as articles and organization
documents to understand the mechanism of business model innovation in the selected
organizations, and then the study was followed by semi structured interviews with the
organization representatives to validate the secondary data findings. The authors believe
that Fiat and Tata motor selection was relevant to the study. Since both of them are
leaders in the automotive industry, this allowed us to find a wide data and an overview
of the two organization's activities. We were able to set relations and the connection
58
between the relevant data to business model innovation based on the business model
innovation typology dimensions; moreover we were provided by confidential
documents from the two organizations that supported further analysis. Furthermore, the
interviews allowed us to validate our findings and provided us with a wider perspective
that was missed in the secondary data. The secondary data and interviews collectively
supported a triangulation process that enhanced the credibility and validity of the study.
On the other hand, we believe that the study has a numerous limitations. First, the
restricted number of the interviews prohibited us to validate the case study findings with
different functional departments involved in business model innovation in the two
organizations. Secondly, we chose business model innovation typology as base for our
study, has limited the study scope into three main dimensions hurdle rate, technology
and value network, however these dimensions allowed us to build common
understanding that facilitates the information gathering form with the interviewees who
had a lower knowledge on business model innovation as an academic concept. Lastly,
despite the proposed framework and checklist derived from analysis can be generalised
and used by the different decision makers in organizations, however we believe that it is
most suitable to the industries similar to the Automotive industry that invest heavily in
high technology and wide partnerships, therefore managers from different industries
should use them with caution according to their industry circumstances.
8.4 Future Research Directions
The study allowed us to have more knowledge of business model innovation on the
corporate level and the factors that affect its decision making process. However, we
believe that further studies can discuss other aspects. First the main features and
requirements of the transition period in the case of selecting innovating existing
business model approach. Such that, the transition period reflects the steps of
transforming the existing business model into the new form. Secondly, researches can
also study how organizations can achieve synergy between the existed business model
and the new business model in case of selecting the multiple business model approach.
Third, business model innovations research in not supported much with quantitative
analysis which may yield strong generalizable results. Fourth, business model
innovation can be even studied for its different effects and challenges depending on top-
down approach and bottom-up approach. Fifth, business model innovation can be
carried out as a separate project; thereby research on business model innovation can
even be extended connecting to project management. Additionally, business model
innovation demands for organisational culture change, so business model innovation
can be studied linking to change management. Further, future researchers may also
discuss business model innovation on the operation level, such that how the different
business units can achieve synergy and integration between their business models.
59
REFERENCES
Aboulnasr, K., Narasimhan, O., Blair, E. & Chandy, R. (2008). Competitive Response
to Radical Product Innovations. Journal of Marketing, 72 (3), 94-110.
Accenture (2011). Enabling Innovation Through Business Process Management.
[Online] Available via:
http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-Enabling-
Innovation-Through-BPM.pdf [Retrieved November 15, 2013].
Adegbesan, J. (2009). On the Origins of Competitive Advantage: Strategic Factor
Markets and Heterogeneous Resources Complementary. Academy of Management
Review, 34 (3), 463-475.
Afuah, A. (2003). Redefining Firm Boundaries in the Face of the Internet: Are Firms
Really Shrinking? Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 34-53.
Afuah, A. & Tucci, C. L. (2001). Internet Business Models and Strategies. Text and
Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Amit, R. & Zott, C. (2001) .Value Creation in e-Business. Strategic Management
Journal, 22, 493-520.
Amit, R. & Zott, C. (2008). The Fit between Product Market Strategy and Business
Model: Implications for Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal. 29 (1), 1-
26.
Amit, R. & Zott, C. (2012). Creating Value through Business Model Innovation. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 53 (3), 41-49.
Anthony, S., Christensen, C., & Roth, E. (2004). Seeing What's Next: Using the
Theories of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Aputo, A. (2012). Integrative Agreements in Multilateral Negotiations: The Case of Fiat
and Chrysler. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(12), 167-180.
Arruda, C., Salum, F. & Rennó, L. (2012). Innovation Strategy at Fiat Automotives.
FDC Cases. 1-8. [Online] Available via:
http://acervo.ci.fdc.org.br/AcervoDigital/Casos/Casos%202012/CF1203%20-
%20Inglês.pdf. [Retrieved November 10, 2013]
Aspara, J., Lamberg, J., Laukia, A.& Tikkanen, H.(2013). Corporate Business Model
Transformation and Inter-Organizational Cognition: The Case of Nokia. Long Range
Planning, 46, 459- 474.
Augier, M. & Teece, D.J. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities and Multinational Enterprise:
Penrosean Insights and Omissions. Management International Review, 47 (2), 175-192.
Autozine. (2013). Autozine Fiat Manufacturer details. [Online] Available via:
http://www.autozine.org/Manufacturer/Italy/Fiat.html [Retrieved November 21, 2013]
60
Baden-Fuller, C & Morgan, M. (2010). Business Models as Models. Long Range
Planning, 43,156-171.
Barstow, S. & Media, D. (2013). Assessing a Project's Hurdle Rate. Houston Chronicle.
[Online]. Available via: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/assessing-projects-hurdle-rate-
75860.html [Retrieved November 02, 2013]
Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and
Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report , 13 (4), 544-559.
BBC News. (2013). Fiat and Mazda to Develop Two-Seater Sports Car. [Online]
Available via: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18171654. [Retrieved November
10, 2013]
Beinhocker, E., Farrell, D., & Zainulbhai, A. (2007). Tracking The Growth of India’s
Middle Class.the Mckinsey Quarterly. [Online].Available via:
http://www.relooney.info/00_New_2016.pdf. [Retrieved November 20, 2013]
Bekmezci, M. (2013). Taking Competitive Advantage by Business Model Innovation.
Journal of Management & Economics, 20 (1), 291-314.
Belk, R. (2008). Consumption and Identity. In A. Lewis.(ed). The Cambridge
Handbook of Psychology and Economic Behavior. United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press, 181-198.
Bell, J. (1999). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide to First-time Researchers in
Education and Social Science. 3rd ed. Buckinham: Open University Press.
Bengtsson, M., Eriksson, J. & Wincent, J. (2010). Coopetition: New Ideas for a New
Paradigm In: Yami, Y., Castaldo, S., Dagnino,G. & Roy, F. (eds.). Coopetition:
Winning Strategy for the 21st Century. United kingdom: Edward Elgar publishing
limited. 19-39.
Benson-Rea, M., Brodie, R., & Sima, H. (2013). The plurality of Co-existing Business
models: Investigating the Complexity of Value Drivers. Industrial Marketing
Management, 42, 717- 729.
Bhat, R (2013). Discussion about Tata Motors Multiple Business Models. [phone call]
(personal communication, Dec 9, 2013)
Bloomberg (2003). Fiat: Running on empty. Bloomberg Business Week Magazine.
[Online] Available via: http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2002-05-12/fiat-running-
on-empty [Retrieved December 15, 2013]
Bock, J., Opsahl, T., George, G. & Gann, M. (2012). The Effects of Culture and
Structure on Strategic Flexibility during Business Model Innovation. Journal of
Management Studies, 49 (2), 279-305
61
Bonazzi, G. & Antonelli, C. (2003). To Make or to Sell?: The Case of In-House
Outsourcing at Fiat Auto. Organization Studies, 24(4), 575–594.
Bourreau,M., Gensollen, M. & Moreau, F.(2012). The Impact of a Radical Innovation
on Business Models: Incremental Adjustments or Big Bang? Industry and Innovation,
19(5), 415-435.
Bucherer, E., Eisert, U. & Gassmann, O. (2012). Towards Systematic Business Model
Innovation: Lessons from Product Innovation Management. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 21 (2), 183-198.
Bunkley, N. (2011). Fiat’s New Management Structure Will Bring Chrysler Into Fold.
The New York Times. [Online] Available via:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/business/fiat-takes-tighter-hold-of-
chrysler.html?_r=0 [Retrieved November 10,2013]
Caldwell, J. (2012). The New and You. Electric Perspectives, 37 (4), 24-33.
Calia, R., Guerrinib, F., & Moura, G. (2007). Innovation Networks: From
Technological Development to Business Model Reconfiguration. Technovation, 27, 426
- 432
Cameron, L. (2009). What If the Public Designed a Car. Canadian Business, 82 (17),
28.
Camuffo, A., & Volpato, G. (1998), Making manufacturing lean in the Italian
Automobile industry – The trajectory of Fiat. In Freyssenet M., Mair A.,
Shimizu K., Volpato G., (eds.). One Best Way? – Trajectories and Industrial
Models of the World’s Automobile Producers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 331-
337. [Retrieved November 10,2013]
Camuffo, A. & Volpato, G. (2002). Global sourcing in the automotive supply chain:
The case of Fiat Auto ‘project 178’ world car. MIT Globalization Research. [Online]
Available via: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/729. [Retrieved November 10, 2013]
Caputo, A., (2012). Integrative Agreements in Multilateral Negotiations: The Case of
Fiat and Chrysler. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(12), 167-180
Carande, C. &, Anthony, A. (2010). Beyond Turbulent Times: Transforming Banking
Business Models. Bank Accounting & Finance, 23(5), 37-40.
Carayannis, E.G., Gonzalez, E & Wetter, J.J. (2003). The Nature and Dynamics of
Discontinuous and Disruptive Innovation from Learning and Knowledge management
perspective. In L. Shavinini (ed). The International Handbook on Innovation. Oxford:
Elxevier Science Ltd, 115-138.
Casadesus-Masanell, R. & Ricart, J. E. (2010). ‘From strategy to business models and
onto tactics’. Long Range Planning, 195-215.
62
Casadesus-Masanell, R. & Tarziján, J. (2012). When One Business Model Isn’t Enough.
Harvard Business Review, 90 (1/2), 132-137.
Casadesus-Masanell, R, & Zhu, F. (2010). Business model innovation and competitive
imitation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(4), 464- 483.
Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P. & Ulhøi, J. (2011). Business Model Dynamics and
Innovation: (Re)Establishing the Missing Linkages. Management Decision, 49 (8),
1327-1342.
Chanal. V. & Caron, M. (2010). The Difficulties Involved in Developing Business
Models open to Innovation Communities: the Case of a Crowdsourcing Platform.
Management. 13(4), 318-341
Chandy, K. & Tellis, J. (2000). The Incumbent's Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical
Product Innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64 (3), 1-17.
Charitou, D. & Markides, C. (2003). Responses to Disruptive Strategic Innovation. MIT
Sloan Management Review. 44 (2), 55-63.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding
Industrial Innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds). Open
Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-11
Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: It’s not Just About Technology
Anymore. Strategy and Leadership, 35 (6), 12-17.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long
Range Planning, 43, 354-363.
Chesbrough, H. & Crowther, A. (2006). Beyond High-Tech: Early Adopters of Open
Innovation in Other Industries. R&D Management, 36 (3), 229-236.
Chesbrough H. & Rosenbloom R. (2002). The role of the Business Model in Capturing
Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s Technology Spin-off
Companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (3), 529-555
Chesbrough, H. & Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovating Business Models with Co-
Development Partnerships. Research Technology Management. 50(1), 55-60.
Ciferri, L. (2001). Brand Management Key to Transformation of Fiat Auto. Automotive
News Europe. [Online] Available via:
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20010702/ANE/107020791#axzz2pZKUKNAE
[Retrieved November 20, 2013]
Ciravegna, L. & Maielli, G. (2011). Outsourcing of New Product Development and The
Opening of Innovation in Mature Industries: A Longitudinal Study of Fiat during Crisis
and Recovery. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15 (1), 69-93.
63
Cloete, E. (2003). The Differential Impact of Business Models on E-Commerce In The
Seventh International Conference on Global Business and Economic Development
Bangkok, Thailand, 1563-1572.
Consalvo, M. (2013). Discussion about Fiat’s Innovating of Existing Business Model.
[phone call] (personal communication, Jan 3, 2014).
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method
Approaches. 3rd Edition. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Dafes (2011). Tata Motors Plans to Open Standalone Outlets for Nano. The Day after
Newspaper. [Online] Available via:
http://www.dayafterindia.com/detail.php?headline=content&catid=1799. [Retrieved
December 15, 2013].
Davey, M., Brennan, M, Meenan, J. & Mcadam, R. (2010). The Health of Innovation:
Why Open Business Models Can Benefit the Healthcare Sector. Irish Journal of
Management, 30(1), 21-40.
De Wit, B. & Meyer R. (2010). Strategy: Process, Content, Context. Hampshire, UK:
Cengage Learning EMEA.
Demil, B. & Lecocq X. (2010). Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamic
Consistency. Long Range Planning, 43, 227-246.
Depeyre, C. & Dumez, H. (2010). The Role of Architectural Players in Coopetition: the
case of US Defense Industry. In: Yami, Y., Castaldo, S., Dagnino,G. & Roy, F. (eds.).
Coopetition: winning strategy for the 21st. century. United kingdom: Edward Elgar
publishing limited, 19-39.
Der Meer, H. (2007). Open Innovation – The Dutch Treat: Challenges in Thinking in
Business Models. Creativity & Innovation Management. , 16(2), 192-202.
Dubosson – Torbay et al. (2002) E-Business Model Design, Classification, and
Measurements. Thunderbird International Business Review, 44 (1), 5-23.
ENS Economic Bureau. (2013). Tata Made a Mistake in Marketing Nano: Ratan.The
new Indian express. [Online] Available via:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/business/news/Tata-Made-a-Mistake-in-Marketing-
Nano-Ratan/2013/11/30/article1918894.ece. [Retrieved November 15, 2013]
Eppler, M., Hoffmann, F. & Bresciani, S. (2011). New Business Models Through
Collaborative Idea Generation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15
(6), 1323–1341.
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ferrari, G. (2013). Fiat SpA: An Investment Case. [Online] Available via:
http://www.beyondproxy.com/fiat-spa-investment-case/ [Retrieved December 23, 2013]
64
Fiat Annual Report (2011). Annual Report of Fiat – 2011. [Online] Available via:
http://www.fiatspa.com/en-
US/investor_relations/financial_reports/FiatDocuments/Bilanci/2011/Fiat_AnnualRepor
t_2011_ENG.pdf. [Retrieved December 15, 2013].
Fiat SPA (2013). Fiat Group History. [Online] Available via:
http://www.fiatspa.com/en-US/group/history/Pages/default.aspx [Retrieved November
20, 2013]
Fiat Wiki (2013). Fiat Automobiles Wikipedia [Online] Available via:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Automobiles [Retrieved November 22, 2013].
Fitzsimmons, E. (2008). Tata Nano heralds New Era for Asian Car Crands Tata Nano.
Media: Asia Media and Marketing Newspaper. [Online].Available via: Business Source
Premier.
Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., & Gassmann, O. (2013). Network Configuration,
Customer Centricity, and Performance of Open Business Models: A Solution Provider
Perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 671–682.
Frankfurt AutoShow. (2011). Alfa Romeo & Jeep: Iconic Brands to Play Globally.
Frankfurt AutoShow investor conference, September 11.
Focus2Move. (2013). Brazil Car Market in 2012 Hit New Sales Record. [Online]
Available via: http://focus2move.com/item/385-brazil-car-market-in-2012-hit-new-
sales-record [Retrieved November 23, 2013].
Forsman, H. (2009). Balancing Capability for Radical and Incremental Innovations.
International Journal of Innovation Management.13 (4). 501-520.
Fox, J. & Cooper C. (2014). Boundary-Spanning in Organizations: Network, Influence
and Conflict. New York: Routledge.
Fox - Penner, P. (2009). Fix Utilities Before They Need a Rescue. Harvard Business
Review, 87(7-8), 18-19.
Gac Fiat. (2013). Company profile. Gac Fiat website. [Online] Available via:
http://www.gacfiatauto.com/knowgafiat/company_jsp_catid_488_497.html. [Retrieved
November 15, 2013].
Garcia, R. (2010). Types of innovation. In V.K. Narayanan, G. C. O’Connor (eds).
Enclyclopedia of Technology Innovation and Management. West Sussex: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, 89- 96.
George, G. & Bock, A. (2011). The Business Model in Practice and Its Implications for
Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35 (1), 83-111.
Germano, L. (2012). FIAT Goes it Alone: the Italian Car Industry, the Government and
the Crisis of the 2000s. South European Society and Politics. 17(1), 65–86.
65
Ghezzi A. (2013). Revisiting Business Strategy under Discontinuity. Management
Decision. 51(7), 1326-1358.
Giesen, E., Riddleberger, E., Christner, R. & Bell, R. (2009). Seizing the Advantage:
When and How to Innovate Your Business Model. New York: IBM Corporation.
Gillham, B. (2000). Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum.
Gnyawali, R. & Park, B. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with
Competitors for Technological Innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650-663.
Govindarajan, V. & Trimble, C. (2012). Reverse Innovation: A Global Growth strategy
that Could Pre-empt Disruption at Home. Strategy & Leadership,40(5),5-11.
Gratton, C. & Jones, I. (2010). Research Methods for Sports Studies. Oxon: Routledge.
Hacklin, F. & Wallnöfer, M. (2012). The Business Model in the Practice of Strategic
Decision Making: Insights from a Case Study. Management Decision, 50 (2), 166-188.
Hagel, J. & Brown, J. (2008). Learning from Tata's Nano. Bloomberg Business Week.
[Online] Available via: http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-02-27/learning-
from-tatas-Nanobusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice.
[Retrieved November 15,2013]
Hair, J., Money, A., Samoeul, P. & Page, M. (2007). Research Methods for Business.
England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the Revolution, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Han, K., Oh, W., Shin, K., Chang, R., Oh H. & and Pinsonneault, A. (2012). Value
Cocreation and Wealth Spillover in Open Innovation Alliances. MIS Quarterly, 36 (1),
291-315.
Henderson, R. & Clark, K. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of
Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-31.
Hienerth, C., Keinz, P. & Lettl, C. (2011). Exploring the Nature and Implementation
Process of User-Centric Business Models. Long Range Planning, 44, 344-374.
Huang, F. & Rice J. (2012). Openness in Product and Process Innovation. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 16 (4), 1-24.
Huang, H., Chi-Lai, M. & Lin, L. (2013). Overcoming Organizational Inertia to
Strengthen Business Model Innovation: An Open Innovation Perspective. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 26 (6), 977-1002.
66
IBEF Automotives. (2011). India Brand Equity Foundation.Automotives Report.
[Online] Available via: http://www.ibef.org/download/Automotives50112.pdf .
[Retrieved November 10, 2013]
IBM (2006). Expanding the Global Horizon: The global CEO Study 2006. IBM Global
Services. New York. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/bus/pdf/ceostudy.pdf. [Retrieved November
16, 2013]
IBM. (2009). Challenges for the Automotive Industry in an on Demand Environment:
Seven areas of strategic action. New York: IBM, 1-26.
IBM. (2011). Will You Buy a Car Today?: IBM SPSS Statistics helps Fiat identify the
most likely customers and prospects. New York: IBM Corporation.
Jain, A. (2013). Lessons to learn from Tata Nano. Financial Chronicle. [Online]
Available via: http://www.mydigitalfc.com/op-ed/lessons-learn-tata-Nano-964.
[Retrieved November 15, 2013]
Johnson, M.W, Christensen, C. M. & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your
Business Model. Harvard Business Review.
Johnson, M. (2010). Seizing the White Space: Business Model for Growth and
Renewal. United States of America: Harvard Business Press.
Kalpan, S. (2012). The Business Model Innovation Factory: How to Stay Relevant
When The World is changing. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Keen, P. & Qureshi, S. (2006). Organizational Transformation through Business
Models: A Framework for Business Model Design. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.[Online] Available via:
http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/hicss39/best%20papers/os/08-14-05.pdf. [Retrieved
November 16, 2013]
Knudsen, M. (2007). The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and
Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success. Product Innovation
Management, 24, 117-138.
Koen, P. , Bertels, H. & Elsum, L. (2011). The Three Faces of Business Model
Innovation: Challenges for Established Firms. Research-Technology Management,
54(3), 52-59.
KPMG. (2008). A Rough Road: The Effects of Today’s Financial Crisis on Automotive
Industry. Germany: KPMG International, 1-12.
Kripalani, M. (2008). Inside the Tata Nano Factory. BusinessWeek [Online] Available
via: Business Source Premier.
Layak, S. (2009). Can Tata Put India on the Wheels? Business Today, 18(8), 60-63.
67
Li, H. & Gima, k. (2007). The adoption of aAgency Business Activity, Product
Innovation and Performance in Chinese Technology Ventures. In K. Wang, K. & M.
Berrell. (eds). Business Networks and Strategic Alliances in China. United Kingdom:
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 99-132.
Lindgardt,Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G. & Diemler, M. S. (2009). Business Model
Innovation: When the Game Gets Tough, Change the Game. The Boston Consulting
Group. [Online] Available via: http://www.bcg.com/documents/file36456.pdf.
[Retrieved November 15, 2013]
Luft, G. (2009).The Micro-Car: Tata Nano Could Change How The Masses Get
Around. Chicago Tribune. [Online] Available via:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-04-05/news/0904040295_1_tata-Nano-ratan-
tata-tata-group. [Retrieved November 16, 2013]
Luo, Y. (1999). Entry and Cooperative Strategies in International Business Expansion.
Greenwood Publishing Group. US: Westport
Madiwale, R. P. (2013). Discussion about Tata Motors Multiple Business Models.
[phone call] (personal communication, Dec 21, 2013)
Maanen, J., (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research.2nd ed. England:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Magretta, J. (2002).Why Business Models Matter, Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86-
92.
Manjeet, K. (2008). Inside the Tata Nano Factory. BusinessWeek. [Online] Available
via: Business Source Premier
Manna,D. (2008). Just-In-Time: Case Studies of Supplier Relationships Across
Industries. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 24 (1), 75-83.
Marchionne, S. (2008). Fiat’s Extreme Makeover. Harvard Business Review, 86(12),
45-48
Marchionne, S. (2010). Fiat Group Automobiles: A way Forward. Fiat Invertor Day,
Turin. [Online].Available Via: http://media.caranddriver.com/files/five-year-plan-for-chrysler-fiat-alfa-romeo-and-ferrari-unveiledfiat-group-product-plan-2010-2014.pdf
[Retrieved November 17,2013]
Markides, C. (1997). Strategic Innovation. Sloan Management Review.38 (3), 9-23.
Markides, C. (2007). Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory. Product
Innovation Management, 23, 19-25.
Markides C, (2008). Game Changing Strategies: How to Create New Market Space in
Established Industries by Breaking the Rules. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons
68
Markides, C., Constantinos D. & Charitou, C. (2004). Competing with Dual Business
Models: A Contingency Approach. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(3),22-
36.
Markides, C., & Oyon, D. (2010). What to Do Against Disruptive Business Models:
When and How to Play Two Games at Once. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(4),
25-32.
Markides C, & Sosa M. (2012). Pioneering and First-Mover Advantages: The
Importance of Business Models. Long Range Planning, 46 (4–5), 325-334
Masanell, R. & Ricart, J.(2010). From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics.
Long Range Planning, 43, 195-215.
McGrath, R. (2010). Business Models: A Discovery Driven Approach. Long Range
Planning, 43, 247-261.
McNamara,P. , Peck, S. & Sasson, A.(2013). Competing Business Models, Value
Creation and Appropriation in English Football. Long Range Planning, 46(6), 475-487.
Mendelson, H. (2000). Organizational Architecture and Success in the Information
Technology Industry. Management Science. JSTO, 46(4), 513-529
Mintzberg, H. (1987). The Strategy Concept: five Ps for Strategy. California
Management Review, 30 (1), 11-24
Mitchell, W & Coles, C. (2004) Establishing a Continuing Business Model Innovation
Process. Journal of Business Strategy, 25(3), 39-49.
Mohile, S. (2012). Tata Motors, Fiat end car sales joint venture: Tata Motors, Fiat end car sales
joint venture. Mit Live & The Wall Street Journal. [Online] Available via:
http://www.livemint.com/Companies/JdjBupzYACCFrcGVxrLLlL/Tata-Motors-Fiat-
end-car-sales-joint-venture.html. [Retrieved November 17, 2013]
Moller, K. & Torronen, P. (2003). Business Suppliers’ Value Creation Potential: A
Capability-Based Analysis, Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 109-118
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M. & Allen, J. (2005). The Entrepreneur’s Business Model:
Toward a Unified Perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58, 726-35.
Morrison, J. (2006). Fiat: Italian Champion Struggles to Compete Globally. [Online]
Available via:
http://www.palgrave.com/business/morrisongbe3/students/casestudies/29%20Fiat,%20It
alian%20champion%20struggles%20to%20compete%20gobally.pdf [Retrieved
December 17, 2013]
Mullins, J. & Kommisar R. (2009). Getting to plan B; Breaking Through to a Better
Business Model. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Nair, S., Hanna, P. , Miguel P. & Javier T. (2013). Service Orientation: Effectuating
Business Model Innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 958-975.
69
Nair, S., Nisar, A., Palacios, M. & Ruiz, F. (2012). Impact of Knowledge Brokering on
Performance Heterogeneity among Business Models. Management Decision, 50(9),
1649-1660.
Nair, S. & Paulose, H. (2014). Emergence of Green Business Models: The Case of
Algae Biofuel for Aviation. Energy Policy, 65, 175-184.
Najmaei, A. (2011). Dynamic Business Model Innovation: An Analytical Archetype.
International Proceedings of Economics Development & Research, 12, 165-171.
Narayanan, K. & O’Connor, G. (2010). Encyclopedia of Technology and Innovation
Management. United Kingdom:John Wiley & sons LTD.
National Academy of Sciences. (1994). Investing for Productivity and Prosperity: Board
on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy. National Research Council.
Washington, DC 20418. Available via at: http://www.nap.
edu/openbook.php?record_id=9075&page=R2. [Retrieved November 17,2013].
Nigel, K. (2004). Using Interviews in Qualitative Research. In: Cassell, C. & Gillian, S.
(2004). Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. England:
SAGE Publications Ltd. Ch 2, 11-22.
Osterwalder, A. (2004). The Business Model Ontology – a Proposition in a Design
Science Approach, Ecole Des Hautes Etudes Commerciales University of Lausanne,
Lausanne.
Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2009). Business Model Generation. A Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers and Challengers. Amsterdam: Modderman Drukwerk.
Palmen, N. (2007). Fiat Has Been Working with Partners Around The Globe to Expand
Its Market. Automotive Industries, 187(3), 19.
Parmar, R., Mackenzie, I., Cohn, D. & Gann, D. (2014). The New Patterns of
Innovation. Harvard Business Review. 92(1/2), 86-95.
Patriotta, G. (2004). Organizational Knowledge in the Making: How Firms Create, Use,
and Institutionalize Knowledge. Oxford University Press, 25(3), 487-491
Porter, M. (1996).What Is Strategy?, Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.
Pyka, A. , Gilbert, N. & Ahrweiler, P. (2007). Simulating Knowledge Generation and
Distribution Processes in Innovation Collaborations and Networks. Cybernetics and
Systems: An International Journal.38:7, 667-693.
Pynnonen, M., Hallikas, J., & Ritala, P. (2012). Managing Customer Drivern Business
Model Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(4), 1-18
Raffaele, F. and Alguezaui, S. (2012). The How and Why of Consumers' Co-Creation:
Evidence from the Fiat 500 Case Study. In: Academy of Marketing Conference 2012:
Marketing: catching the technology wave, 2-5 July 2012, Southampton, UK
70
Ramsinghani, M. (2010). The Trouble With India's People's Car: Tata Created The
World's Least Expensive Automobile. The only problem now is selling it. Technology
Review, 115 (1), 69.
Rao, N. & Naikwadi, I. (2009). Innovation and Management Practices during GFM
Period: A case Study of Tata Motors LTD and Suzuki LTD. Global Management
Review, 4 (1), 19-26.
Reed, J. (2012). Fiat ends sales partnership with Tata. Financial Times. Available via:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/17264848-9456-11e1-bb47-00144feab49a.html [Retrieved
November 17, 2013]
Revelle, J. (2002). Manufacturing Handbook of Best Practices: An innovation,
productivity, and quality focus. Florida: CRC Press LLC.
Richard, J. & Burnap, A. (2012). Crowdsourcing: A Primer and Its Implications For
Systems Engineering. In:NDIA Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology
Symposium 2012. Systems Engineering and Integration (SE) Mini Symposium, 14-16
August 2012, Michigan.
Richter, M. (2011). Utilities’ Business Models for Renewable Energy: Evidence from
Germany. Sweden: World Renewable energy Congress. 8-11 may 2011.
Rowley, I., Mehul, S., Nandini, L. & Moon, L. (2008). Tata’s Nano Hits A Speed
Bump. BusinessWeek, 4095, 30.
Sabatier, V., Mangematin, V. & Rousselle, T. (2010). From Recipe to Dinner: Business
Model Portfolios in the European Biopharmaceutical Industry. Long Range Planning,
43, 431-447
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business
Students. 6 th ed. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Scott-Kemmis, D. (2012). Responding To Change and Pursuing Growth: Exploring The
Potential of Business Model Innovation In Australia. Australian Business Foundation.
Sehgal, V.,Ericksen, M. & Sachan, S. (2009). Revving the Growth Engine India’s
Automotive Industry is on a Fast Track. United states: Booz&Co. Available via:
http://www.booz.com/media/uploads/Revving_the_Growth_Engine.pdf
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods For Business. 4th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley &
Sons.
Shafer, H., Smitha, J.,& Linder, J. (2005). The Power of Business Models, Business
Horizons, 48, 199-207.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. England:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
71
Singh, B. K. (2012). Nano-The People’s Car. International Journal of Research in
Management. 2(2), 48-60.
Snyder, J. (2008). Tata Rewards Suppliers with Ties to India: Nano Contracts Position
Companies For Future Growth in the Country. Automotive News. [Online] Available
via: http://www.autonews.com/article/20080414/GLOBAL02/304149986/tata-rewards-
suppliers-with-ties-to-india#axzz2oO3tmPUT. [Retrieved November 17,2013]
Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodriguez, N., & Velamuri, R., (2010). Business Model
Innovation through Trail-and-Error Learning. The Naturhouse Case. Long Range
Planning 43 (2), 383-407.
Srinivasan,S. (2011). Harvard Business Review on Business Model Innovation.
Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management, 7 (3), 139-142.
Srivastava, M. (2009). At Last, Tata Motors' $2,000 Nano. BusinessWeek Online.
Available via Business Source Premier.
Srivastava, R. (2007). Managing Turnaround and Transformation: The Tata Motors
Way In Bhattacharyya, B. Theory and Practice of Case Method of Instruction. New
Delhi: Institute For Intergrated Learning in Management, 179-210.
Stringer, R. (2000). How to Manage Radical Innovation. California Management
Review. 42 (4), 70-88.
Sturgeon, T. & Biesebroeck, J.(2010). Effects of the Crisis on the Automotive Industry
in Developing Countries: A Global Value Chain Perspective. Policy Research Working
Paper. [Online] Available via: http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/06/02/000158349_2010
0602085323/Rendered/PDF/WPS5330.pdf. [Retrieved November 17,2013]
Svejenova, S., Planellas, M. & Vives, L. (2010). An Individual Business Model in the
Making: A Chef’s Quest for Creative Freedom. Long Range Planning 43, 408-430.
Swaminathan, V. & Moorman, C. (2009). Marketing Alliances, Firm Networks, and
Firm Value Creation. Journal of Marketing, 73, 52–69.
Tata Motors (2013). Company Profile. [Online] Available via:
http://www.tatamotors.com/know-us/company-profile.php [Retrieved November 11,
2013]
Tata Nano (2013). Tata Nano Wikipedia. [Online] Available via:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano [Retrieved November 28, 2013]
Tata Pixel (2013). Tata Pixel Homepage. [Online] Available via:
http://www.tatapixel.com/ [Retrieved November 15, 2013]
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Business Innovation. Long
Range Planning 43, 172-194.
72
Teece, D., & Augier, M. (2008). Strategy as Evolution with Design: The Foundations of
Dynamic Capabilities and the Role of Managers in the Economic System, Organization
Studies, 29 (8-9), 1187-208.
The Economist. (2002). Fiat Ciao, Paolo. The Economist: Business Print Edition.
Avaiable via: http://www.economist.com/node/1182416. [Retrieved November 17, 2013]
Timmers, P. (1998). Business Models for Electronic Markets, Electronic Markets, 8(2),
3-8.
Tripathy, M., Pandey, S., Srivastava, A., Vyas, R., & Agrawal, M. (2012). The
Turnaround of Tata Nano: Reinventing The Wheel. SAGE Publications, 16 (1), 53-59.
Vargo, S. & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the Evolution.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (1), 1-10.
Vargo, S., Maglio P. & Akaka M. (2008). On Value and Value Co-Creation: A Service
Systems and Service Logic Perspective. European Management Journal. 26, 145– 152.
Velu, C. & Stiles, P. (2013). Managing Decision-Making and Cannibalization for
Parallel Business Models. Long Range Planning, 46, 443–458.
Vendetti, D. (2011). Innovating Your Business Model: Thinking Beyond Future.
Product Arts.[Online] Available via: http://www.product-
arts.com/resourcemain/articlemenu/2167-business-model-innovation. [Retrieved
November 20, 2013]
Voelpel, S., Leibold, M., & Tekie, B. (2004). The Wheel of Business Model
Reinvention: How To Reshape Your Business Model To Leapfrog Competitors. Journal
of Change Management, 4 (3), 259-276.
Vogt, P. ,Gardner, D.,& Haeffele, L. (2012). When to Use What Research Design. New
York: Guilford Publications.
Volkova, T & Jakobsone, I. (2013). The Creation of Successful Business Models
Through The Extended Application of Design in Business in Latvia and Estonia. Baltic
Journal of Management, 8 (4), 486-506.
Volpato, G. (2009). Fiat Group Automobiles – An Arabian Phoenix in the International
Auto Industry. In the second Automobile revolution trajectories of the World carmakers
in the 21st Century, M Freyssenet (ed.), Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 331-337.
Wang, J. (2009). New Media Technology and New Business Models: Speculations on
Post-Advertising Paradigms. Media International Australia, 133, 110-119.
Wang,L., Jaring, P. , & Wallin,A. (2009). Deveoping a Conceptual Framework for
Business Model Innovation in the Context of Open Innovation. 3rd IEEE International
Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies, 453-458.
73
Watson-Manheim, M., Chudoba, K., Atherine M., & Crowston, K. (2002).
Discontinuities and Continuities: A New Way to Understand Virtual Work. Information
Technology & People. 15 (3). 191-209.
Weill, P. & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Place to space. Migrating to E-Business Models,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Weiwei, Y. (2012). Crowdsourcing for Collaboration-Oriented Innovations. Social
Science Letters, 1 (1), 85-92.
Wells, P. (2010). The Tata Nano, The Global ‘Value’ Segment and The Implications
For The Traditional Automotive Industry Regions. Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society, 3, 443-457.
Wells, P. (2013). Sustainable Business Models and The Automotive Industry: A
Commentary. IIMB Management Review, 25, 228-239.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management
Journal. 5(2), 171-180.
Whetten, D. (1989). What Constitutes A Theoretical Contribution. The Academy of
Management Review, 19(4), 490-495.
Whitford, J & Enrietti, A. (2005). Surviving the Fall of A King: The Regional
Institutional Implications of Crisis at Fiat Auto. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research. 29(4), 771–795.
Wiggins, R. & Ruefli, T. (2005). Schumpeter’s Ghost: Is Hypercompetition Making the
Best of Times Shorter?. Strategic Management Journal. 26, 887-911.
Williams, B. (2012). The Economics of Cloud Computing: An Overview For Decision
Makers. Indianapolis USA: Cisco Press.
Willimas, M. (2013). Tata Motors to Launch Diesel Nano Car By End of March.
Reuters. [Online] Available via: http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/tatamotors-
Nano-idINL4N0H02ET20130904. [Retrieved November 17,2013]
Wirtz, B. W., Schilke, O. & Ullrich, S. (2010). Strategic Development of Business
Models: Implications of the Web 2.0 for Creating Value on the Internet. Long Range
Planning. 43(2), 272-290
Wit, B. & Meyer R. (2004). Strategy: Process, Content, Context: An International
Perspective. 3rd ed. London : Thomson Learning.
WSJ. (2012). European Car Market Slides. The Wall Street Journal. [Online] Available
via:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240529702044680045771661611173128
18.[Retrieved November 23, 2013]
74
Wong, K. (2007). Fiat Wants Deeper Alliance with Chery.South China Morning Post.
[Online] Available via: http://www.scmp. com/article/580476/fiat-wants-deeper-
alliance-chery. [Retrieved November 23, 2013]
Wu, L. (2010). Applicability of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views under
environmental volatility. Journal of Business Research, 63, 27–31
Wytenburg, A. (1999). Complexity, Computational Ability, and The Corporation of The
Future. In M. Lissack. Managing Complexity in Organizations: A View in Many
Directions. United States of America:Michael Lissak & Hugh P. Gunz, 35-64
Wytenburg, A. J. (2001). Bracing For The Future: Complexity and Computational
Ability in the Knowledge Era. Emergence, 3(2), 113-126.
Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. England: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Third Edition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Zirpoli, F & Caputo, M. (2002). The Nature of Buyer- Supplier Relationships in Co-
Design Activities: The Italian Auto Industry Case, 22(12), 1389- 1410.
Zoratti,S. & Gallagher, L. (2012). Precision Marketing: Maximizing Revenue Through
Relevance. London: Kogan Page Limited
Zott, C. & Amit, R. (2008). The Fit Between Product Market Strategy and Business
Model: Implications for Firms Performance, Strategic Management Journal. 29, 1-26.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2010). The Business Model: Theoretical Roots, Recent
Developments, and Future Research, Working Paper 862, June 2010, Navarra: IESE
Business School – University of Navarra.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and
Future Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019-1042.
75
APPENDIX
I. Business Model Definitions
Definition Reference
“the content, structure, and governance of transactions designed
so as to create value through the exploitation of business
opportunities”
Amit and Zott,
2001, (p. 511)
“an architecture of the product, service and information flows,
including a description of the various business actors and their
roles; a description of the potential benefits for the various
business actors; a description of the sources of revenues”
Timmers, 1998,
(p. 2)
“the heuristic logic that connects technical potential with the
realization of economic value”
Chesbrough and
Rosenbloom,
2002, (p. 529)
“a description of the roles and relationships among a firm’s
consumers, customers, allies, and suppliers that identifies the
major flows of product, information, and money, and the major
benefits for participants”
Weill and
Vitale, 2001, (p.
34)
“a representation of the underlining core logic and strategic
choices for creating and capturing value within a value network”
Shafer et al.
2005, (p. 202)
“A business model is nothing else than the architecture of a firm
and its network of partners for creating, marketing and
delivering value and relationship capital to one or several
segments of customers in order to generate profitable and
sustainable revenue streams”
Dubosson-
Torbay et al.
2002, (p. 7)
“concise representation of how an interrelated set of decision
variables in the areas of venture strategy, architecture, and
economics are addressed to create sustainable competitive
advantage in defined markets”
Morris et al.
2005, (p. 727)
“Stories that explain how enterprises work. A good business
model answers Peter Drucker’s age old questions: Who is the
customer? And what does the customer value? It also answers
the fundamental questions every manager must ask: How do we
make money in this business? What is the underlying economic
logic that explains how we can deliver value to customers at an
appropriate cost?”
Magretta, 2002,
(p. 4)
Source: Zott et al. (2010)
76
II. Fiat’s Product Range
Brand Segment Example Models
Fiat A, B, C, C-LCV, B-MPV, D-
MPV, B-SUV, D-LCV, C-
Pickup
500, Siena, Linea, Qubo, 500L,
Freemont, Sedici, Scudo, Strada
Abarth A, B Abarth 595, Abarth Punto
Alfa
Romeo
B, C, D-Sport MiTo, Guilietta, 4C
Lancia B, C, D, E, D-MPV Ypsilon, Delta, Flavia, Thema,
Voyager
Jeep C-SUV, D-SUV, E-SUV Compass, Wrangler, Grand Cherokee
Dodge B, C, D, E, D-Sport, D-MPV, E-
SUV, E-Sport, E-Pickup
Forza, Dart, Avenger, Charger,
Challenger, Grand Caravan, Durango,
SRT Viper, Ram Pickup
Chrysler B, C, D, E, D-MPV (US
Market)
Ypsilon, Delta, 200, 300, Town &
Country
Masereti E, F, E-Sport Ghibli, Quattroporte, Gran Turismo
Ferrari E-Sport 458 Spider
Iveco Commercial Vehicles Trackker, Strallis, Daily
Source: Marchionne (2010); Frankfurt AutoShow (2011)
77
III. List of Tata Nano suppliers
Supplier Component
Behr HVAC for the luxury version
Bosch Gasoline injection system, starter, alternator, brake system
Caparo Inner structural panels
Continental Gasoline fuel supply system, fuel-level sensor
Delphi Instrument cluster
Denso Windshield wiper system
FAG Rear-wheel bearing
Federal Mogul Bearings
Ficosaa Rear-view mirrors, interior mirrors, manual and CVT,
shifters, washer system
Freudenberg Engine sealing
GKN Drive shafts
TGY Batteries (Yuasa) Batteries
INA Shifting elements
ITW Deltar Outside and inside door handles
Johnson Controls Seating
Mahle Camshafts, oil filters, fuel filters, and air cleaners
Kinetic Engineering CVT
NOK Sealants
Saint-Gobain Glazing
TACO Steel stampings, injection moulded, interior/exterior
components, bumpers, dashboard, front console, cylinder
head cover, timing gear cover
TRW Brake system
Tenneco Exhaust
Toyoa Radiator and cooling system
Valeo Clutch system
Vibracoustic Engine mounts
Visteon Air induction system
Yazakia Wiring harness
ZF Chassis components
Source: Wells (2010, p. 447)
78
IV. Fiat’s Interview Template
Background & General
1. What is the strength point for Fiat in the automotive industry?
2. Would you briefly tell us how the alliance with Chrysler can support Fiat? To
what extend will it support Fiat position in the US automotive market only and
internationally. How did the competitors respond to this alliance?
3. What are the current challenges facing Fiat in the industry?
4. What are the important changes introduced by Sergio Marchionne as a new CEO
to Fiat on the internal level? (i.e. organizational structure, motivation, decision making
process, etc)
Technology and supplier network
1. How Fiat is different in terms of technology compared to competitors?
2. How Fiat managed to build long relationships with its first tier suppliers?
3. Would you briefly tell us how the international strategy of suppliers in different
countries supports Fiat product development?
Customer value network
1. Would you briefly tell us the main features of the Fiat customer relationship
strategy, since it is one of the pillars of Fiat transformations?
2. What are the challenges faced Fiat to shift to technology and customer centric
company instead of being only driven by technology?
3. Do you expect that Fiat will continue in designing online initiatives for the new
products as it did with Fiat 500 and Fiat Mio?
Future perspective on the BM
1. What are the future plans with Fiat?
79
V. Tata Motor’s Interview Template
Background & General 1. What is the strength point for Tata in the vehicles segment in India? 2. We know that the idea for Nano came from the CEO of Tata, but how did the
company prepare for it? Organizational structure for Nano team?
3. Who is the target segment? Was it changed/more focused since launching?
4. How Nano is important for Tata, and how did Nano contributed to Tata (sales,
market, …etc)?
Tata Nano
1. What are the strength points for Nano in the market?
2. Compare to other Tata Motors products, how Tata Nano is different from others?
3. Did Nano succeeded in changing the industry and the game rule? if yes how ?
4. What are the challenges faced during implementation of Tata Nano?
Hurdle Rate 1. Is there was a fixed budget for Nano?
2. How was the Cost structure for Nano to make it profitable? Technology and supplier network 1. How Tata Nano is different in terms of technology compared to Tata and
competitors?
2. How the supplier strategy for Nano is different to other products?
3. What changes Tata Motors had with their Supplier Strategy?
a. Was it limited for Tata Nano?
b. Was it limited for certain period of time?
4. Would you elaborate how suppliers contributed to Nano as innovators?
Customer value network 1. What was distribution method for Tata Nano?
a. How was it different from earlier method of distribution?
b. How did it contribute to Nano sales?
80
2. How Tata Nano approached to appeal to common people? To what extend Tata
Motors is satisfied with customers’ feedback?
3. What kind of tie-ups did they have with banks and other partners during Tata Nano
booking and selling process?
Future perspective on the BM 1. What the future plans with Nano locally and globally?
2. What are the current challenges Nano Facing?
3. How competitors respond to Nano.?
81
Umeå School of Business and Economics
Umeå University
SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden
www.usbe.umu.se
